On 12/7/2021 2:06 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 09:16:43 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
I suppose this could also be a bool. Not sure if we need to care about packing optimizations at this point.
It may also be useful to rename this to something less generic to avoid potential clashes with other data structures in the future. We've often used the _soc suffix in other drivers to mark this kind of SoC-specific data. In this case it would be struct hda_tegra_soc.
If Takashi is fine with this as-is, I don't have any strong objections, though.
Indeed, a bit more prefix would be better for avoiding the possible conflict in future, but the struct name is local, so I don't mind to use the simple name for now. We can change it later once when needed, too.
[...]
One other thing we've done in the past is to explicitly pass these structures for each compatible string. That simplifies things a bit because we don't have to keep checking for non-NULL pointers and instead rely on the fact that there's always a valid pointer.
To do so, you'd basically add:
static const struct hda_data tegra186_data = { .do_reset = 0, };And reference that for both the Tegra186 and Tegra194 entries. Again, not strictly necessary and since we have only one occurrence where we need to check this, it seems fine as-is, so:
Acked-by: Thierry Reding treding@nvidia.com
That's true, too. OTOH, completely without a NULL check would be also unsafe, so some sanity check would be still required.
That said, the current patch is good enough for taking as a regression fix, but I'm fine to wait for a while for v2 to address those, too :)
Let me send a v2 for above.