Re: [PATCH] gpio: Initialize i2c_device_id arrays using member names

[Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub)]

Hello Bartosz,

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 09:47:45AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 12 May 2026 17:21:25 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
> > While being less compact, using named initializers allows to more easily
> > see which members of the structs are assigned which value without having
> > to lookup the declaration of the struct. And it's also more robust
> > against changes to the struct definition.
> > 
> > The mentioned robustness is relevant for a planned change to struct
> > i2c_device_id that replaces .driver_data by an anonymous union.
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 
> [1/1] gpio: Initialize i2c_device_id arrays using member names
>       https://git.kernel.org/brgl/c/553e26a45e0e66698c1e0043b705933102ac3edc

in the meantime I improved my workflow to also adapt i2c_device_id
arrays that don't make use of .driver_data. For drivers/gpio that would
be:

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-adnp.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-adnp.c
index e5ac2d211013..27a80d1143a1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-adnp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-adnp.c
@@ -499,8 +499,8 @@ static int adnp_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 }
 
 static const struct i2c_device_id adnp_i2c_id[] = {
-	{ "gpio-adnp" },
-	{ },
+	{ .name = "gpio-adnp" },
+	{ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, adnp_i2c_id);
 
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ds4520.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ds4520.c
index f52ecae382a4..5add662a7ef5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ds4520.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ds4520.c
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id ds4520_gpio_of_match_table[] = {
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ds4520_gpio_of_match_table);
 
 static const struct i2c_device_id ds4520_gpio_id_table[] = {
-	{ "ds4520-gpio" },
+	{ .name = "ds4520-gpio" },
 	{ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ds4520_gpio_id_table);
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-fxl6408.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-fxl6408.c
index afc1b8461dab..45b02d36e66f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-fxl6408.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-fxl6408.c
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static const __maybe_unused struct of_device_id fxl6408_dt_ids[] = {
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, fxl6408_dt_ids);
 
 static const struct i2c_device_id fxl6408_id[] = {
-	{ "fxl6408" },
+	{ .name = "fxl6408" },
 	{ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, fxl6408_id);
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-gw-pld.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-gw-pld.c
index 2e5d97b7363f..bf1f91c3c4a8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-gw-pld.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-gw-pld.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int gw_pld_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 }
 
 static const struct i2c_device_id gw_pld_id[] = {
-	{ "gw-pld", },
+	{ .name = "gw-pld" },
 	{ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, gw_pld_id);
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-max7300.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-max7300.c
index 621d609ece90..62f2434c0d79 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-max7300.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-max7300.c
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void max7300_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
 }
 
 static const struct i2c_device_id max7300_id[] = {
-	{ "max7300" },
+	{ .name = "max7300" },
 	{ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max7300_id);
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tpic2810.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tpic2810.c
index 866ff2d436d5..c38538653e99 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tpic2810.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tpic2810.c
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static int tpic2810_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 }
 
 static const struct i2c_device_id tpic2810_id_table[] = {
-	{ "tpic2810", },
+	{ .name = "tpic2810" },
 	{ /* sentinel */ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, tpic2810_id_table);
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ts4900.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ts4900.c
index d9ee8fc77ccd..b46b48e56c56 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ts4900.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ts4900.c
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static int ts4900_gpio_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 }
 
 static const struct i2c_device_id ts4900_gpio_id_table[] = {
-	{ "ts4900-gpio", },
+	{ .name = "ts4900-gpio" },
 	{ /* sentinel */ }
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ts4900_gpio_id_table);

These changes would fit to be squashed into the patch you merged. Would
you prefer to do that, or should I put these changes into a separate
patch?

Best regards
Uwe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature