…

Should I leave it like this, or deregister the attributes, so those cases are never triggered?

I'm also not sure about the block of comments at the start describing the (guessed) format of the
packets, let me know if this should go somewhere else.

Apologies if I've messed anything up, I've only sent fairly small patches until now :)

Such information should not belong to the change description.
It may be specified behind the marker line.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.11-rc3#n711


…

…

+static void corsair_void_process_receiver(struct corsair_void_drvdata *drvdata,
+					  int raw_battery_capacity,
+					  int raw_connection_status,
+					  int raw_battery_status)
+{

…

+	/* Set battery status */
+	switch (raw_battery_status) {
+	case 1:
+	case 2:
+	case 3: /* Battery normal / low / critical */

…

Will any enumeration values become more helpful here?


…

+static int corsair_void_request_status(struct hid_device *hid_dev, int id)
+{
+	unsigned char *send_buf;
+	int ret;
+
+	send_buf = kzalloc(12, GFP_KERNEL);

…

Please improve the size determination (or explanation).


…

+static int corsair_void_probe(struct hid_device *hid_dev,
+			      const struct hid_device_id *hid_id)
+{

…

+/*failed_after_hid_start:
+	hid_hw_stop(hid_dev);*/
+failed_after_sysfs:

…

I guess that you would not like to preserve code which was commented out.

Regards,
Markus