On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:07:07 +0200, Stephen Kitt <steve@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:32:31 -0700, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:28:01PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote: > > > > > > -static int ltc2978_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > > - const struct i2c_device_id *id) > > > +static int ltc2978_probe(struct i2c_client *client) > > > { > > > int i, chip_id; > > > struct ltc2978_data *data; > > > @@ -670,10 +669,10 @@ static int ltc2978_probe(struct i2c_client > > > *client, return chip_id; > > > > > > data->id = chip_id; > > > - if (data->id != id->driver_data) > > > + if (strcmp(client->name, ltc2978_id[data->id].name) != 0) > > > > I was about to apply this patch, but this is problematic: It assumes that > > __stringify(id) == ltc2978_id[id].name and that ltc2978_id[id].driver_data > > == id. While that is curently the case (as far as I can see), it is still > > unsafe. I think it would be much safer to use i2c_match_id() here. > > I’m not following the __stringify assumption [...] I get it, the code assumes there’s a bijection between the set of names and the set of driver_data values. So effectively we can’t log the detected name based on the chip_id... Regards, Stephen
Attachment:
pgpCIOc2hgZx1.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature