On 2/17/22 11:49, Eugene Shalygin wrote:
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
!strcmp(), and, yes, dmi functions can return NULL.
Guenter
