Hello Pavel,
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 07:24:41PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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 :-).
Should have tried this before, but I actually did now. O:-)
If I move the attribute behind, I get this on a W=1 build:
CC drivers/leds/leds-pwm.o
/home/alex/src/linux/leds/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c:58:1: error: attributes should be specified before the declarator in a function definition
static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv,
^~~~~~
Because it won't build then, I'll keep it where it is. Meanwhile I
worked on all the DT remarks by Rob and I will send v6 soon.
Greets
Alex
--
/"\ ASCII RIBBON | »With the first link, the chain is forged. The first
\ / CAMPAIGN | speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the
X AGAINST | first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.«
/ \ HTML MAIL | (Jean-Luc Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
