Hello Marc,
On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 12:55:45PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> > + }, {
> > /* ASEM Dual CAN raw -new model */
> > - ASEM_RAW_CAN_VENDOR_ID, ASEM_RAW_CAN_DEVICE_ID,
> > - ASEM_RAW_CAN_SUB_VENDOR_ID, ASEM_RAW_CAN_SUB_DEVICE_ID_BIS,
> > - 0, 0,
> > - (kernel_ulong_t)&plx_pci_card_info_asem_dual_can
> > + PCI_DEVICE_SUB(ASEM_RAW_CAN_VENDOR_ID, ASEM_RAW_CAN_DEVICE_ID,
> > + ASEM_RAW_CAN_SUB_VENDOR_ID,
> > ASEM_RAW_CAN_SUB_DEVICE_ID_BIS),
> > + .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&plx_pci_card_info_asem_dual_can,
> > },
> > - { 0,}
> > + { }
>
> Nitpick: can you convert the terminating entry to follow the same style
> as the rest of the driver:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/sja1000/plx_pci.c
> b/drivers/net/can/sja1000/plx_pci.c
> index a03553b80a5d..d69ff0ccfd94 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/sja1000/plx_pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/sja1000/plx_pci.c
> @@ -353,8 +353,8 @@ static const struct pci_device_id plx_pci_tbl[] = {
> PCI_DEVICE_SUB(ASEM_RAW_CAN_VENDOR_ID,
> ASEM_RAW_CAN_DEVICE_ID,
> ASEM_RAW_CAN_SUB_VENDOR_ID,
> ASEM_RAW_CAN_SUB_DEVICE_ID_BIS),
> .driver_data =
> (kernel_ulong_t)&plx_pci_card_info_asem_dual_can,
> - },
> - { }
> + }, {
> + }
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, plx_pci_tbl);After the conversation in the v1 thread it was unclear to me if you stand by your opinion, so I kept the format as it was. I interpret your repetition of the nitpick as request to rework the can drivers for the next revision (if that happens). Best regards Uwe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
