Re: [PATCH 4/9] nvmem: imx-ocotp-ele: Add keepout table for i.MX93

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Initialization of a flexible array member is not at the end of the initializer list, causing build errors.
--

commit d9179d39f1569f2fd5d16521edccfaa2096500c4
Author: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>

nvmem: imx-ocotp-ele: Add keepout table for i.MX93

This commit adds an overall keepout table to describe which fuse
registers are invalid and inaccessible for the i.MX93.

> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c b/drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c
> index a0d2985c6d030..dadec19ca2527 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -185,6 +201,8 @@ static const struct ocotp_devtype_data imx93_ocotp_data = {
>  		{ 188, 1, FUSE_ELE },
>  		{ 312, 200, FUSE_FSB }
>  	},
> +	.keepout = imx93_ocotp_keepout,
> +	.nkeepout = ARRAY_SIZE(imx93_ocotp_keepout),

[Severity: Low]
Does this cause a build failure? It looks like the designated initializers
for .keepout and .nkeepout are placed after the initialization of the flexible
array member .entry.

In C, flexible array members must be the last items initialized in a struct,
otherwise compilers like GCC will typically throw an "initialization of a
flexible array member not at end of struct" error.

Could these initializers be moved above the .entry initialization?

>  };
>  
>  static const struct ocotp_devtype_data imx94_ocotp_data = {

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260616-upstreaming-next-20260609-imx-ocotp-ele-v1-0-cb7f3698c3e6@kontron.de?part=4