Hello Pavel,
Am Samstag, 19. September 2020, 11:44:18 CEST schrieb Pavel Machek:
> > Since commit 141f15c66d94 ("leds: pwm: remove header") that platform
> > interface is not usable from outside and there seems to be no in tree
> > user anymore. All in-tree users of the leds-pwm driver seem to use DT
> > currently. Getting rid of the old platform interface will allow the
> > leds-pwm driver to switch over from 'devm_led_classdev_register()' to
> > 'devm_led_classdev_register_ext()' later.
> >
> > @@ -61,6 +56,7 @@ static int led_pwm_set(struct led_classdev *led_cdev,
> >
> > return pwm_apply_state(led_dat->pwm, &led_dat->pwmstate);
> >
> > }
> >
> > +__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.
Greets
Alex
