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