[PATCH v1 1/1] HID: i2c-hid: acpi: Drop redundant ACPI_PTR()

The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same.
Otherwise a compiler may produce a warning.

That said, the rule of thumb either ugly ifdeffery with ACPI_PTR or
none should be used in a driver.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
index 00bbd218f1e8..d35ff3f16a5b 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c

@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static struct i2c_driver i2c_hid_acpi_driver = {
 		.name	= "i2c_hid_acpi",
 		.pm	= &i2c_hid_core_pm,
 		.probe_type = PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS,
-		.acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(i2c_hid_acpi_match),
+		.acpi_match_table = i2c_hid_acpi_match,
 	},
 
 	.probe		= i2c_hid_acpi_probe,

-- 
2.30.0

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:

The driver depends on ACPI, ACPI_PTR() resolution is always the same.
Otherwise a compiler may produce a warning.

That said, the rule of thumb either ugly ifdeffery with ACPI_PTR or
none should be used in a driver.

Oh, I see more improvements can be done, so, I will send this and the
rest as v2 altogether.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko