drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c | 660 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 409 insertions(+), 251 deletions(-)
When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add
them out of order.
We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the
use of keep-sorted.
This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two
patches can be squashed if needed.
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
---
Ricardo Ribalda (2):
media: uvcvideo: Rewrite uvc_ids for keep-sorted.
media: uvcvideo: Add keep-sorted statement and sort uvc_ids
drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c | 660 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 409 insertions(+), 251 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 398a1b33f1479af35ca915c5efc9b00d6204f8fa
change-id: 20250429-keep-sorted-2ac6f4796726
Best regards,
--
Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
Hi Ricardo, On 29-Apr-25 15:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add > them out of order. > > We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the > use of keep-sorted. > > This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two > patches can be squashed if needed. > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org> I've no objections against these 2 patches, but these need to be rebased on top of the latest uvc/for-next. Can you send out a new version please ? Also for patch 2/2 can we not just add the 2 keep-sorted headers and then actually run keep-sorted to auto-fix things ? Or can it not auto-fix ? Regards, Hans > --- > Ricardo Ribalda (2): > media: uvcvideo: Rewrite uvc_ids for keep-sorted. > media: uvcvideo: Add keep-sorted statement and sort uvc_ids > > drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c | 660 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 409 insertions(+), 251 deletions(-) > --- > base-commit: 398a1b33f1479af35ca915c5efc9b00d6204f8fa > change-id: 20250429-keep-sorted-2ac6f4796726 > > Best regards,
Hi Hans On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:05, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hi Ricardo, > > On 29-Apr-25 15:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > > When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add > > them out of order. > > > > We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the > > use of keep-sorted. > > > > This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two > > patches can be squashed if needed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org> > > I've no objections against these 2 patches, but these need to be > rebased on top of the latest uvc/for-next. Can you send out a new > version please ? I was waiting for HansV to say that keep-sorted was useful and then add it to the CI. Right now it is probably just useful for the Makefiles and uvc. > > Also for patch 2/2 can we not just add the 2 keep-sorted headers > and then actually run keep-sorted to auto-fix things ? Do you mean removing the annotation after running keep-sorted? We can do that, but we will be unsorted again in the future after N patches unless we add it to CI. If we do not handle this automatically I do not think that there is much point on this series. Thanks for looking into it anyway :) > > Or can it not auto-fix ? > > Regards, > > Hans > > > > > --- > > Ricardo Ribalda (2): > > media: uvcvideo: Rewrite uvc_ids for keep-sorted. > > media: uvcvideo: Add keep-sorted statement and sort uvc_ids > > > > drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c | 660 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 409 insertions(+), 251 deletions(-) > > --- > > base-commit: 398a1b33f1479af35ca915c5efc9b00d6204f8fa > > change-id: 20250429-keep-sorted-2ac6f4796726 > > > > Best regards, > -- Ricardo Ribalda
Hi Ricardo, On 16-Jun-25 15:22, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > Hi Hans > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:05, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Ricardo, >> >> On 29-Apr-25 15:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: >>> When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add >>> them out of order. >>> >>> We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the >>> use of keep-sorted. >>> >>> This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two >>> patches can be squashed if needed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org> >> >> I've no objections against these 2 patches, but these need to be >> rebased on top of the latest uvc/for-next. Can you send out a new >> version please ? > > I was waiting for HansV to say that keep-sorted was useful and then > add it to the CI. Ok, so should we drop this series from patchwork then ? > > Right now it is probably just useful for the Makefiles and uvc. > >> >> Also for patch 2/2 can we not just add the 2 keep-sorted headers >> and then actually run keep-sorted to auto-fix things ? > > Do you mean removing the annotation after running keep-sorted? > > We can do that, but we will be unsorted again in the future after N > patches unless we add it to CI. > > If we do not handle this automatically I do not think that there is > much point on this series. What I meant is only add the annotations and then run something like: keepsorted --auto-fix drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c and submit the result as a separate commit. Assuming that there is such a thing as --auto-fix. The reason for this is that if the sorting is done by a tool there is last chance for it to accidentally break things. Regards, Hans
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:26, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hi Ricardo, > > On 16-Jun-25 15:22, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > > Hi Hans > > > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:05, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ricardo, > >> > >> On 29-Apr-25 15:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > >>> When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add > >>> them out of order. > >>> > >>> We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the > >>> use of keep-sorted. > >>> > >>> This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two > >>> patches can be squashed if needed. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org> > >> > >> I've no objections against these 2 patches, but these need to be > >> rebased on top of the latest uvc/for-next. Can you send out a new > >> version please ? > > > > I was waiting for HansV to say that keep-sorted was useful and then > > add it to the CI. > > Ok, so should we drop this series from patchwork then ? If the series does not bother you too much in patchwork let it stay there until HansV replies to the makefile series. > > > > > Right now it is probably just useful for the Makefiles and uvc. > > > >> > >> Also for patch 2/2 can we not just add the 2 keep-sorted headers > >> and then actually run keep-sorted to auto-fix things ? > > > > Do you mean removing the annotation after running keep-sorted? > > > > We can do that, but we will be unsorted again in the future after N > > patches unless we add it to CI. > > > > If we do not handle this automatically I do not think that there is > > much point on this series. > > What I meant is only add the annotations and then run something > like: > > keepsorted --auto-fix drivers/media/usb/uvc/uvc_driver.c > > and submit the result as a separate commit. Assuming that there is such > a thing as --auto-fix. The reason for this is that if the sorting is done > by a tool there is last chance for it to accidentally break things. keep-sorted can work in two modes: fix and lint. If HansV finds it useful I will refactor this patch with the extra step. Thanks :) > > Regards, > > Hans > > -- Ricardo Ribalda
Hi Ricardo, On 16-Jun-25 15:31, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:26, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Ricardo, >> >> On 16-Jun-25 15:22, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: >>> Hi Hans >>> >>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:05, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ricardo, >>>> >>>> On 29-Apr-25 15:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: >>>>> When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add >>>>> them out of order. >>>>> >>>>> We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the >>>>> use of keep-sorted. >>>>> >>>>> This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two >>>>> patches can be squashed if needed. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org> >>>> >>>> I've no objections against these 2 patches, but these need to be >>>> rebased on top of the latest uvc/for-next. Can you send out a new >>>> version please ? >>> >>> I was waiting for HansV to say that keep-sorted was useful and then >>> add it to the CI. >> >> Ok, so should we drop this series from patchwork then ? > > If the series does not bother you too much in patchwork let it stay > there until HansV replies to the makefile series. Sure that works for me. Regards, Hans
On 16/06/2025 15:38, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Ricardo, > > On 16-Jun-25 15:31, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:26, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ricardo, >>> >>> On 16-Jun-25 15:22, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: >>>> Hi Hans >>>> >>>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:05, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ricardo, >>>>> >>>>> On 29-Apr-25 15:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote: >>>>>> When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add >>>>>> them out of order. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the >>>>>> use of keep-sorted. >>>>>> >>>>>> This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two >>>>>> patches can be squashed if needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org> >>>>> >>>>> I've no objections against these 2 patches, but these need to be >>>>> rebased on top of the latest uvc/for-next. Can you send out a new >>>>> version please ? >>>> >>>> I was waiting for HansV to say that keep-sorted was useful and then >>>> add it to the CI. >>> >>> Ok, so should we drop this series from patchwork then ? >> >> If the series does not bother you too much in patchwork let it stay >> there until HansV replies to the makefile series. I did that. Basically I don't like the keep-sorted annotation unless it is rolled out kernel-wide. It's not something we should do just in the media subsystem. That doesn't mean that a patch fixing the uvc_ids order isn't welcome, but just drop the annotation. If we do that, then patch 1/2 is also no longer needed. Although it feels more logical that match_flags is at the end. I leave that to HdG and Laurent to decide. Regards, Hans > > Sure that works for me. > > Regards, > > Hans > >
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 01:52:50PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 16/06/2025 15:38, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > On 16-Jun-25 15:31, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:26, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>> On 16-Jun-25 15:22, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:05, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On 29-Apr-25 15:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> >>>>>> When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add
> >>>>>> them out of order.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the
> >>>>>> use of keep-sorted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two
> >>>>>> patches can be squashed if needed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've no objections against these 2 patches, but these need to be
> >>>>> rebased on top of the latest uvc/for-next. Can you send out a new
> >>>>> version please ?
> >>>>
> >>>> I was waiting for HansV to say that keep-sorted was useful and then
> >>>> add it to the CI.
> >>>
> >>> Ok, so should we drop this series from patchwork then ?
> >>
> >> If the series does not bother you too much in patchwork let it stay
> >> there until HansV replies to the makefile series.
>
> I did that. Basically I don't like the keep-sorted annotation unless it
> is rolled out kernel-wide. It's not something we should do just in the
> media subsystem.
>
> That doesn't mean that a patch fixing the uvc_ids order isn't welcome,
> but just drop the annotation.
>
> If we do that, then patch 1/2 is also no longer needed. Although it
> feels more logical that match_flags is at the end. I leave that to
> HdG and Laurent to decide.
.match_flags is first to match the order of the fields in the
usb_device_id structure. Is there a need to move it last, or is only the
}, {
construct that the tool doesn't like ?
> > Sure that works for me.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 at 14:54, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 01:52:50PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On 16/06/2025 15:38, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > On 16-Jun-25 15:31, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:26, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>> On 16-Jun-25 15:22, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > >>>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 15:05, Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>>>> On 29-Apr-25 15:47, Ricardo Ribalda wrote:
> > >>>>>> When committers contribute quirks to the uvc driver, they usually add
> > >>>>>> them out of order.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We can automatically validate that their follow our guidelines with the
> > >>>>>> use of keep-sorted.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This patchset adds support for keep-sorted in the uvc driver. The two
> > >>>>>> patches can be squashed if needed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I've no objections against these 2 patches, but these need to be
> > >>>>> rebased on top of the latest uvc/for-next. Can you send out a new
> > >>>>> version please ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I was waiting for HansV to say that keep-sorted was useful and then
> > >>>> add it to the CI.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ok, so should we drop this series from patchwork then ?
> > >>
> > >> If the series does not bother you too much in patchwork let it stay
> > >> there until HansV replies to the makefile series.
> >
> > I did that. Basically I don't like the keep-sorted annotation unless it
> > is rolled out kernel-wide. It's not something we should do just in the
> > media subsystem.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that a patch fixing the uvc_ids order isn't welcome,
> > but just drop the annotation.
> >
> > If we do that, then patch 1/2 is also no longer needed. Although it
> > feels more logical that match_flags is at the end. I leave that to
> > HdG and Laurent to decide.
>
> .match_flags is first to match the order of the fields in the
> usb_device_id structure. Is there a need to move it last, or is only the
>
> }, {
>
> construct that the tool doesn't like ?
The },{ construct is fine.
The tool sorts all the content in the block
Eg:
{
tail= AA;
head = BBB;
}
is sorted before:
{
tail = CC;
head= AAAA;
}
It can be tuned with a regex:
https://github.com/google/keep-sorted?tab=readme-ov-file#regular-expressions
But the syntax is not particularly nice.
This is why I moved "head" to the beginning of every struct.
Anyway, since keep-sorted is not going to be part of the CI unless it
is adopted by other subsystems we can ignore this for now.
Regards!
>
> > > Sure that works for me.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
--
Ricardo Ribalda
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.