Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] iio: light: ltr501: Fix sorting order of device arrays

[Esben Haabendal <esben@geanix.com>]

"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 09:57:17AM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>> "Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> writes:
>> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 07:02:17PM +0200, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> >>  enum {
>> >> -	ltr501 = 0,
>> >> -	ltr559,
>> >> -	ltr301,
>> >
>> >> +	ltr301 = 0,
>> >
>> > Is the 0 required? Why?
>>
>> As for the code produced, it should not make any difference.
>>
>> I assume it was put here for improved code readability, and I did not
>> see any reason to change that.
>>
>> I don't care about it myself, so will be happy to remove it if that is
>> the preferred style now.
>
> It's not about the style, it's about understanding the C language.
> As per style, we have only one requirement in IIO, if the value is used
> in communication with HW (part of protocol or a bitfield) *all* enum
> values must be explicitly assigned, otherwise (Linux only case) none
> (with, of course some exceptions, which are not the case here).

Ok. I will amend the patch with this change, so that we get rid of this
unneeded and unwanted assignment.

>> >>  	ltr303,
>> >>  	ltr329,
>> >> +	ltr501,
>> >> +	ltr559,
>> >>  };

/Esben