Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Wed, 16 May 2018 01:24:47 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] leds: lm3601x: Introduce the lm3601x LED driver |
| |
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com> wrote: > On 05/15/2018 04:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com> wrote:
>>> + depends on LEDS_CLASS && I2C && OF >> >> What is OF specific in this driver? > > as3645a_led_class_setup has a "of" dependency
So what? Is it called from this driver or?
>>> +static const struct lm3601x_max_timeouts strobe_timeouts[] = { >>> + { 40000, 0x00 }, >>> + { 80000, 0x01 }, >>> + { 120000, 0x02 }, >>> + { 160000, 0x03 }, >>> + { 200000, 0x04 }, >>> + { 240000, 0x05 }, >>> + { 280000, 0x06 }, >>> + { 320000, 0x07 }, >>> + { 360000, 0x08 }, >>> + { 400000, 0x09 }, >>> + { 600000, 0x0a }, >>> + { 800000, 0x0b }, >>> + { 1000000, 0x0c }, >>> + { 1200000, 0x0d }, >>> + { 1400000, 0x0e }, >>> + { 1600000, 0x0f }, >> >> Huh?! > > Please give comments that actually mean something other wise I will opt to ignore them.
I did below.
>> strobe_timeout = (x + 1) * 40 * MSECS_IN_SEC; > > Not sure what equation you are trying to point out here. But if you are trying to apply > a timeout step you cannot do this with this part. As pointed out in the DT doc the timeout > step is not linear.
Yeah, I know people are more than often too lazy to think.
if (x < 9) strobe_timeout = (x + 1) * 40 * MSECS_IN_SEC; else strobe_timeout = (400 + (x - 9) * 200) * MSECS_IN_SEC;
>>> + brightness_val = (brightness/2); >> >> Spaces. > > Not sure what this means checkpatch was clean
Even besides missed whispaces it has redundant parens.
checkpatch is not a silver bullet to get your code clean and nice.
>> This is return led_...(); > > That is a preference. It does not have to be that way.
What do you mean? We do not appreciate +LOCs for no (or even nagative!) benefit.
>>> + ret = of_property_read_string(led->led_node, "label", &name); >> >> device_property_...(); > > It can be if the maintainer is requesting this.
Jacek, if you need rationale behind this comment it's here: the driver has nothing DT specific and getting rid of OF centric programming allows to reuse the driver on non-DT platforms w/o touching a source code.
> Is the trend to move to these functions?
See above.
> Most drivers use the "of" calls.
So what?
>>> + if (!ret) >> >> if (ret) sounds more natural. And better just to split >> >>> + snprintf(led->led_name, sizeof(led->led_name), >>> + "%s:%s", led->led_node->name, name); >>> + else >>> + snprintf(led->led_name, sizeof(led->led_name), >>> + "%s:torch", led->led_node->name); >> >> const char *tmp; >> >> ret = device_property_read_...(&tmp); >> if (ret) >> tmp = ... >> sprintf(...);
No comments on this?
>>> + led = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, >>> + sizeof(struct lm3601x_led), GFP_KERNEL); >> >> sizeof(*led) and one line in the result
And this?
>>> + { }, >> >> Terminators better w/o comma. > > Looking at other drivers adding comma's on the sentinel is accepted. See the as3645a driver
So what?
Terminator at compile time even better.
>>> + {}, >> >> Ditto. > > See above
See above.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |