On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri 2016-12-16 11:56:48, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:14:05AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, I was asking if the above snipped looks like valid use. Because
>> > AFAICT, the "custom fallback" is just dev_err(), see above. Coccinelle
>> > rules don't help me...
>>
>> Its not. Its when you ask for no uevent. Only 2 drivers do this.
>
> That was one of two you listed. If that is not valid use, perhaps it
> should be removed, not annotated?
Pavel, the annotation was added on top of:
static int lp55xx_request_firmware(struct lp55xx_chip *chip)
{
const char *name = chip->cl->name;
struct device *dev = &chip->cl->dev;
return request_firmware_nowait(THIS_MODULE, false, name, dev,
GFP_KERNEL, chip, lp55xx_firmware_loaded);
}
Note the second argument is false. This matches the grammar and the
definition for a custom fallback mechanism since uevents are not used.
What am I missing?
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
