[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200930172441.GI27760@duo.ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 19:24:41 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Alexander Dahl <ada@...rsis.com>
Cc: Alexander Dahl <post@...pocky.de>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
Marek BehĂșn <marek.behun@....cz>,
Denis Osterland-Heim <denis.osterland@...hl.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] leds: pwm: Remove platform_data support
Hi!
> > > +__attribute__((nonnull))
> > >
> > > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv,
> > >
> > > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> > >
> > > {
> >
> > This normally goes elsewhere -- right? I'd expect:
> >
> >
> > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv,
> > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> > __attribute__((nonnull))
>
> I found both variants in kernel code. I can live with both variants and have
> no strong preference.
>
> My initial intention to add it was to get a compiler warning in case someone
> does not pass a fwnode here, e.g. when using that old platform_data approach
> (which is supposed to be removed with this patch). You might call it a self
> check on my own changes. I can also drop that attribute if you don't want
> that kind of stuff in linux-leds.
I'm okay with it at the second place :-).
Thanks,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists