Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:39:36 -0600 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/10] pwm-backlight: Use new enable_gpio field |
| |
On 09/23/2013 03:41 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > Make use of the new enable_gpio field and allow it to be set from DT as > well. Now that all legacy users of platform data have been converted to > initialize this field to an invalid value, it is safe to use the field > from the driver.
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/backlight/pwm-backlight.txt
> Optional properties:
> + - enable-gpios: a list of GPIOs to enable and disable the backlight
That seems to imply that multiple GPIOs are legal. Was that intended? If not, I would suggest:
- enable-gpios: contains a single GPIO specifier for the GPIO which enables/disables the backlight. See [1] for the format.
> > [0]: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt + [1]: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> @@ -51,12 +55,27 @@ static void pwm_backlight_power_on(struct pwm_bl_data *pb, int brightness, > pb->lth_brightness; > > pwm_config(pb->pwm, duty_cycle, pb->period); > + > + if (gpio_is_valid(pb->enable_gpio)) { > + if (pb->enable_gpio_flags & PWM_BACKLIGHT_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW) > + gpio_set_value(pb->enable_gpio, 0); > + else > + gpio_set_value(pb->enable_gpio, 1); > + }
Feel completely free to ignore this, but when the difference in two code-paths is solely in function parameters, I prefer to calculate the parameter inside the if statement, then call the function outside the conditional code, to highlight the common/different parts:
int value;
/* or an if statement for the next 1 line, if you don't like ?: */ value = (pb->enable_gpio_flags & PWM_BACKLIGHT_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW) ? 0 : 1; gpio_set_value((pb->enable_gpio, value);
> @@ -148,11 +168,10 @@ static int pwm_backlight_parse_dt(struct device *dev,
> + data->enable_gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(node, "enable-gpios", 0, > + &flags); > + if (gpio_is_valid(data->enable_gpio) && (flags & OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW)) > + data->enable_gpio_flags |= PWM_BACKLIGHT_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW;
This doesn't seem to handle deferred probe correctly; I would expect something more like:
data->enable_gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(...); if (data->enable_gpio == -EPROBE_DEFERRED) return data->enable_gpio; if (gpio_is_valid(...)) ... return 0;
I suppose it's possible that the value filters down to gpio_request_one() and this actually does work out OK, but that feels very accidental/implicit to me.
| |