Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] gpio: Unify style of acpi_device_id arrays

[Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub)]

Hello Andy,

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 08:41:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 06:55:21PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
> > Update the various acpi_device_id arrays to conform to the most used and
> > generally recommended coding style. That is:
> 
> ...
> 
> >  static const struct acpi_device_id dwapb_acpi_match[] = {
> > -	{ .id = "HISI0181", .driver_data = GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V1 },
> >  	{ .id = "APMC0D07", .driver_data = GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V1 },
> >  	{ .id = "APMC0D81", .driver_data = GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V2 },
> >  	{ .id = "FUJI200A", .driver_data = GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V1 },
> > +	{ .id = "HISI0181", .driver_data = GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V1 },
> >  	{ .id = "LECA0001", .driver_data = GPIO_REG_OFFSET_V1 },
> >  	{ }
> 
> Why this churn? It simply should be folded to the previous patch.

I guess with "previous patch" you mean "[PATCH v2 12/21] gpio: Use named
initializers for acpi_device_id array"? I didn't fold the reordering
into that, because reordering isn't about using named initializers and
mixing in other changes makes reviewing harder. And given that there is
a "churn" patch anyhow (which is "needed" because not all arrays that
use unusual styling have an earlier change) fixing the ordering in the
"unify style" patch IMHO fits better.

But note that for removing trailing , and spacing in the lines that I
touch in patch #12, I agree to do that there. So we're talking about
grey and subjective areas. But note that reordering breaks the promise
of patch #12 "This patch doesn't modify the compiled arrays", which was
the relevant reason for my choice when considering where to implement
your sort request.

Also note that folding cleanups into patches that touch the same code
area also makes it harder to keep commit logs up-to-date, which you
already noticed I didn't master even with only doing one thing per
patch.

Best regards
Uwe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature