On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 3:03 PM Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/10/2022 10:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 9:34 AM Jean-Jacques Hiblot > > <jjhiblot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 17/09/2022 10:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 11:14 AM Jean-Jacques Hiblot > >>> <jjhiblot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > >>>> + led_cdev = devm_of_led_get(dev, count); > >>> Why _of_ variant? Please, make this OF independent since it's > >>> pretending to cover not only OF-based systems. > >> This is not OF independent. It could be, but that will wait until > >> someone needs it. I don't know much about ACPI and have no hardware to > >> test it on. > >> > >> I'll add the missing dependency on OF in the Kconfig. > > No, please consider getting rid of OF-centric API usage. > > The trouble is that the OF-agnostic API for leds doesn't exist yet and I > don't really want to add it without any way to test it. Yeah, that might be a problem due to unestablished descriptions outside DT. Anyway, it seems harmless to call that function when there is no OF dependency. In such cases it will fail with a deferred probe. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
