Hi Krzysztof,
On 2022-09-12 at 12:56 +02, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/09/2022 22:01, Mikhail Rudenko wrote:
>> +static const struct i2c_device_id ov4689_id[] = {
>> + { "ov4689", 0 },
>> + {},
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ov4689_id);
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id ov4689_of_match[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "ovti,ov4689" },
>> + {},
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ov4689_of_match);
>> +
>> +static struct i2c_driver ov4689_i2c_driver = {
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "ov4689",
>> + .pm = &ov4689_pm_ops,
>> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(ov4689_of_match),
>
> of_match_ptr is usually paired with maybe_unused, otherwise you will
> have compile test warnings.
I see. I think we could also use `#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)` around
`ov4689_of_match` and the corresponding `MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE`. Is it
appropriate here?
>> + },
>> + .probe = ov4689_probe,
>> + .remove = ov4689_remove,
>> + .id_table = ov4689_id,
>> +};
>> +
>> +module_i2c_driver(ov4689_i2c_driver);
>> +
>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("OmniVision ov4689 sensor driver");
>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
--
Best regards,
Mikhail Rudenko
