Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:56:47 +0100 | From | Jacek Anaszewski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC v9 01/19] leds: Add LED Flash class extension to the LED subsystem |
| |
Hi Sakari,
On 12/09/2014 01:36 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Jacek, > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 10:29:10AM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > ... >>>> +static struct attribute *led_flash_strobe_attrs[] = { >>>> + &dev_attr_flash_strobe.attr, >>>> + NULL, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static struct attribute *led_flash_timeout_attrs[] = { >>>> + &dev_attr_flash_timeout.attr, >>>> + &dev_attr_max_flash_timeout.attr, >>>> + NULL, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static struct attribute *led_flash_brightness_attrs[] = { >>>> + &dev_attr_flash_brightness.attr, >>>> + &dev_attr_max_flash_brightness.attr, >>>> + NULL, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static struct attribute *led_flash_fault_attrs[] = { >>>> + &dev_attr_flash_fault.attr, >>>> + NULL, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static struct attribute *led_flash_sync_strobe_attrs[] = { >>>> + &dev_attr_flash_sync_strobe.attr, >>>> + NULL, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct attribute_group led_flash_strobe_group = { >>>> + .attrs = led_flash_strobe_attrs, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct attribute_group led_flash_timeout_group = { >>>> + .attrs = led_flash_timeout_attrs, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct attribute_group led_flash_brightness_group = { >>>> + .attrs = led_flash_brightness_attrs, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct attribute_group led_flash_fault_group = { >>>> + .attrs = led_flash_fault_attrs, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct attribute_group led_flash_sync_strobe_group = { >>>> + .attrs = led_flash_sync_strobe_attrs, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static const struct attribute_group *flash_groups[] = { >>>> + &led_flash_strobe_group, >>>> + NULL, >>>> + NULL, >>>> + NULL, >>>> + NULL, >>>> + NULL, >>>> + NULL >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static void led_flash_resume(struct led_classdev *led_cdev) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct led_classdev_flash *flash = lcdev_to_flash(led_cdev); >>>> + >>>> + call_flash_op(flash, flash_brightness_set, flash->brightness.val); >>>> + call_flash_op(flash, timeout_set, flash->timeout.val); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static void led_flash_init_sysfs_groups(struct led_classdev_flash *flash) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct led_classdev *led_cdev = &flash->led_cdev; >>>> + const struct led_flash_ops *ops = flash->ops; >>>> + int num_sysfs_groups = 1; >>>> + >>>> + if (ops->flash_brightness_set) >>>> + flash_groups[num_sysfs_groups++] = &led_flash_brightness_group; >>>> + >>>> + if (ops->timeout_set) >>>> + flash_groups[num_sysfs_groups++] = &led_flash_timeout_group; >>>> + >>>> + if (ops->fault_get) >>>> + flash_groups[num_sysfs_groups++] = &led_flash_fault_group; >>>> + >>>> + if (led_cdev->flags & LED_DEV_CAP_COMPOUND) >>>> + flash_groups[num_sysfs_groups++] = &led_flash_sync_strobe_group; >>>> + >>>> + led_cdev->groups = flash_groups; >>> >>> Shouldn't you have groups local to the device instead? If you register >>> another flash device bad things will happen if the ops the device supports >>> are different. >> >> The groups are local to the device. A LED class device is registered >> with device_create_with_groups called from led_classdev_register >> function. It is passed led_cdev->groups in the fifth argument. > > The groups pointer will be stored in struct device. If you have another > driver using different groups, it will affect the groups for all flash > devices that use the same groups pointer. I'm not sure what exactly would > follow from that but I'd rather not change them once the device is created.
I had to take another look at this to understand the problem. I think that the best option will be making flash_groups array a member of struct led_classdev_flash.
>>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +int led_classdev_flash_register(struct device *parent, >>>> + struct led_classdev_flash *flash) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct led_classdev *led_cdev; >>>> + const struct led_flash_ops *ops; >>>> + int ret; >>>> + >>>> + if (!flash) >>> >>> Do you have a use case for this? >> >> This is just a guard against NULL pointer dereference. Maybe it is >> indeed redundant, as the driver developer can easily check its >> origin during implementation. > > Fine for me.
Fine regarding my explanation or you agree that it is redundant?
Best Regards, Jacek Anaszewski
| |