Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x | From | Jacek Anaszewski <> | Date | Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:27:34 +0100 |
| |
On 11/30/2016 10:10 AM, Phong Vo wrote: > +-----Original Message----- > +From: Jacek Anaszewski [mailto:j.anaszewski@samsung.com] > +Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:00 PM > +To: Phong Vo > +Cc: Mika Westerberg; Rafael J. Wysocki; Richard Purdie; linux- > +leds@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > +acpi@vger.kernel.org; Loc Ho; Thang Nguyen; patches; Tin Huynh > +Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x > + > +Hi Phong, > + > +On 11/30/2016 09:23 AM, Phong Vo wrote: > +> +-----Original Message----- > +> +From: Jacek Anaszewski [mailto:j.anaszewski@samsung.com] > +> +Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:18 PM > +> +To: Tin Huynh > +> +Cc: Mika Westerberg; Rafael J. Wysocki; Richard Purdie; linux- > +> +leds@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > +> +acpi@vger.kernel.org; Loc Ho; Thang Nguyen; Phong Vo; patches > +> +Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x > +> + > +> +On 11/30/2016 09:06 AM, Tin Huynh wrote: > +> +> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Jacek Anaszewski > +> +> <j.anaszewski@samsung.com> wrote: > +> +>> > +> +>> On 11/30/2016 08:51 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > +> +>>> > +> +>>> Hi Tin, > +> +>>> > +> +>>> How this patch is different from the one already merged? > +> +>>> > +> +>>> Best regards, > +> +>>> Jacek Anaszewski > +> +>>> > +> > +> Hi Jacek, I am answering on behalf of Tin. > +> This patch is for the leds:pca955x driver while the previous one was > +> for leds:pca963x driver! > +> They are almost the same in the coding construct, but different > +drivers. > + > +Ah, indeed, that's why I got lost with patch version numbering :-) > + > +> +>>> On 11/30/2016 04:08 AM, Tin Huynh wrote: > +> +>>>> > +> +>>>> This patch enables ACPI support for leds-pca955x driver. > +> +>>>> > +> +>>>> Signed-off-by: Tin Huynh <tnhuynh@apm.com> > +> +>>>> --- > +> +>>>> drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- > +> +>>>> 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > +> +>>>> > +> +>>>> Change from V2: > +> +>>>> -Correct coding conventions. > +> +>>>> > +> +>>>> Change from V1: > +> +>>>> -Remove CONFIG_ACPI. > +> +>>>> > +> +>>>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c > +> +>>>> b/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c index 840401a..b168ebe 100644 > +> +>>>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c > +> +>>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c > +> +>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ > +> +>>>> * bits the chip supports. > +> +>>>> */ > +> +>>>> > +> +>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h> > +> +>>>> #include <linux/module.h> > +> +>>>> #include <linux/delay.h> > +> +>>>> #include <linux/string.h> > +> +>>>> @@ -100,6 +101,15 @@ struct pca955x_chipdef { }; > +> +>>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, pca955x_id); > +> +>>>> > +> +>>>> +static const struct acpi_device_id pca955x_acpi_ids[] = { > +> +>>>> + { .id = "PCA9550", .driver_data = pca9550 }, > +> +>>>> + { .id = "PCA9551", .driver_data = pca9551 }, > +> +>>>> + { .id = "PCA9552", .driver_data = pca9552 }, > +> +>>>> + { .id = "PCA9553", .driver_data = pca9553 }, > +> +>>>> + { } > +> +>> > +> +>> > +> +>> OK, I see that you brought back explicit properties in the > +> +>> structure initializer. Is there some vital reason for that? > +> > +> It's not vital, but to make it consistent with what was done for > +> pca963x, > + > +For pca963x I applied the version without explicit properties. > +Note that this is consistent with pca963x_id array above the added > +pca963x_acpi_ids. For pca955x the situation is the same. > + > +> and also per suggestion by Mika on reviewing a different driver > +> mux:954x in another thread. > + > +Could you give a reference to that thread? In the review of V1 of this > +patch Mika mentioned "{ "PCA9553", pca9553 }" scheme. > + > > Actually it was Peter Rosin (not Mika) on linux-i2c and the reference to > that is follows > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/18/732 > > I am including Robin here. > > Thanks.
Thanks for the link. I prefer to stick to the style of the surrounding code, so let's drop ".id =" and ".driver_data =" from the initializers.
Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski
> +> I would think this would make the definition clearer. > +> > +> +>> You're mentioning "correcting coding conventions" in the patch > +> +>> changelog. checkpatch.pl --strict doesn't complain about that, so > +> +>> what coding conventions you have on mind? > +> +> > +> +> > +> +>> > +> +>> > +> +>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, pca955x_acpi_ids); > +> +>>>> + > +> +>>>> struct pca955x { > +> +>>>> struct mutex lock; > +> +>>>> struct pca955x_led *leds; > +> +>>>> @@ -250,7 +260,16 @@ static int pca955x_probe(struct i2c_client > +> +*client, > +> +>>>> struct led_platform_data *pdata; > +> +>>>> int i, err; > +> +>>>> > +> +>>>> - chip = &pca955x_chipdefs[id->driver_data]; > +> +>>>> + if (id) { > +> +>>>> + chip = &pca955x_chipdefs[id->driver_data]; > +> +>>>> + } else { > +> +>>>> + const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id; > +> +> > +> +> I added '{}' follow if > +> + > +> +You had it already in V1. Please verify if the patch applied to the > +> +for- next branch of linux-leds.git has the shape you intended: > +> + > +> +https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/j.anaszewski/linux- > +> +leds.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=e46895b71a26da404c4d95cb2bab1a67cf8b20 > +> +bc > +> + > +> +-- > +> +Best regards, > +> +Jacek Anaszewski > +> -- > +> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" > +> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo > +> info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > +> > +> > +> > + > + > +-- > +Best regards, > +Jacek Anaszewski > > >
| |