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