Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-162054-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:28:32 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
	linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] i2c: Add a void pointer to i2c_device_id
Message-ID: <Zi92UCnZa90DXAI9@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240426213832.915485-2-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
 <Zi9gRVVw7qbKSL5k@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <youkuwbynndjpcoux2zaxwjp5gquj647leub3bat37a4wtho6p@ypir6ay3vhaw>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <youkuwbynndjpcoux2zaxwjp5gquj647leub3bat37a4wtho6p@ypir6ay3vhaw>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:54:29AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:38:33PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:

..

> > >  static const struct i2c_device_id wlf_gf_module_id[] = {
> > > -	{ "wlf-gf-module", 0 },
> > > +	{ "wlf-gf-module", },
> > 
> > In such cases the inner comma is redundant as well.
> 
> I would tend to keep the comma, but no strong opinion on my side.

It's just a confusing leftover in my opinion.

> If another member init is added later, the line has to be touched
> anyhow, but in the layout:
> 
> 	... = {
> 		{
> 			"wlf-gf-module",
> 		},
> 		{ }
> 	}
> 
> I'd keep it for sure.

That's not what I object. Here I am 100% with you.

> > >  	{ }
> > >  };

..

> > In general idea might be okay, but I always have the same Q (do we have it
> > being clarified in the documentation, btw): is an ID table the ABI or not?
> > In another word, how should we treat the changes there, because ID tables
> > are being used by the user space tools.
> 
> Note that the layout doesn't change and the traditional interpretation
> of the data still works fine. Or do you see something that I miss?

Do we have any configurations / architectures / etc when
sizeof(kernel_ulong_t) != sizeof(void *) ? If not, we are fine.

(Different endianess seems impossible.)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko