On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 20:33, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/17/22 10:43, Eugene Shalygin wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 19:26, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Looks like you did not run checkpatch. > > > > I did (0 errors/warnings/checks). What needs to be corrected? > > > > Interesting. It appears that the continuation line in the declaration > confuses it. Otherwise you would get: > > WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations Added in v2, thank you! > >> Either case, I think you should just drop this function In probe: > > > > Yes, currently that function is tiny, but some tests with motherboards > > from other families are done by users and if I add other families, the > > information required for each board model will grow and in that case > > I'd switch from dmi_system_id array to a custom struct to define all > > the board-related data at at the same place, and to save some space in > > the module binary, as unused parts of the dmi_system_id array already > > take a quarter of the total binary size. So, the function will likely > > get some more code soon. > > > > Hmm, ok. Wouldn't you still need some kind of dmi match ? Of course, just not via dmi_first_match(): https://github.com/zeule/asus-ec-sensors/blob/feature/prime-x470-pro-no-dmi/asus-ec-sensors.c#L787 Regards, Eugene
