On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:07:07 +0200, Stephen Kitt <st...@sk2.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:32:31 -0700, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> 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
pgpm_wvfSlRNV.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
