On Sun, Aug 06, 2023 at 02:29:50PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 17:42:21 +0000 > Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:17:24 +0100 > > > Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > + * Besides the fact that some drivers abuse the device ID driver_data type > > + * and claim it to be integer, for the bus specific ID tables the driver_data > > + * may be defined as kernel_ulong_t. For these tables 0 is a valid response, > > + * but not for this function. It's recommended to convert those either to avoid > > + * 0 or use a real pointer to the predefined driver data. > We still need to maintain consistency across the two tables, which > is a stronger requirement than avoiding 0. True. Any suggestion how to amend the above comment? Because the documentation makes sense on its own (may be split from the series?). > Some drivers already do that by forcing the enum used to start at 1 which > doesn't solver the different data types issue. And some maintainers do not want to see non-enum values in i2c ID table. *Shrug*. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
