On 26/05/2025 06:59, Rosen Penev wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 9:30 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 25/05/2025 23:42, Rosen Penev wrote:
>>> @@ -72,20 +55,15 @@ static const struct ath_bus_ops ath_ahb_bus_ops = {
>>>
>>> static int ath_ahb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> - const struct platform_device_id *id = platform_get_device_id(pdev);
>>> struct ieee80211_hw *hw;
>>> struct ath_softc *sc;
>>> struct ath_hw *ah;
>>> void __iomem *mem;
>>> char hw_name[64];
>>> + u16 dev_id;
>>
>> I don't think these are u16 in the headers, but unsigned int.
> Sure. I can change to int or kernel_ulong_t. It doesn't matter much.
> The function that uses this has an int parameter, so might make sense
> to use that.
Ah, ok, that's fine then. Ignore both comments.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
