On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:
> > > >On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 07 Mar 2023, Okan Sahin wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > +static const struct i2c_device_id max77541_i2c_id[] = {
> > > + { "max77540", (kernel_ulong_t)&chip[MAX77540] },
> > > + { "max77541", (kernel_ulong_t)&chip[MAX77541] },
> >
> > Just 'MAX77540' is fine.
>
> I tend to disagree.
>
> There is an error prone approach esp. when we talk with some functions
> that unifies OF/ACPI driver data retrieval with legacy ID tables.
> In such a case the 0 from enum is hard to distinguish from NULL when
> the driver data is not set or not found. On top of that the simple integer
> in the legacy driver data will require additional code to be added in
> the ->probe().
Use a !0 enum?
The extra handling is expected and normal.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
