On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:03 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:23 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > for (p = &table->table[0]; p->key; p++) {
> > > + struct gpio_device *gdev __free(gpio_device_put) = NULL;
> >
> > > + gdev = gpio_device_find_by_label(p->key);
> > > + if (!gdev) {
> >
> > I haven't got the fix for gpio-sim, shouldn't we have the same here, i.e.
> > definition being done together with the assignment when __free() is in use?
>
> It should but I only got yelled at by Linus under the gpio-sim patch
> after I sent this one.
That happens, it's all new.
I guess ideally we should patch checkpatch to just moan about
this, I wonder how hard that could be (I've only patched it once in
my life...)
Yours,
Linus Walleij
