lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate
From
Date
On 11/16/2015 08:53 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800
> Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
>>> Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
>>> update.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
>>> ---
>>> Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
>>>
>>> --->8---
>>> virtual patch
>>>
>>> @@
>>> struct pwm_device *p;
>>> expression e;
>>> @@
>>> (
>>> -(p)->polarity = e;
>>> +pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
>>> |
>>> -(p)->polarity
>>> +pwm_get_polarity((p))
>>
>> s/((p))/(p)/
>>
>>> |
>>> -(p)->period = e;
>>> +pwm_set_period((p), e);
>>> |
>>> -(p)->period
>>> +pwm_get_period((p))
>>
>> s/((p))/(p)/
>>
>>> |
>>> -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
>>> +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
>>
>> The (p) seems unnecessary here.
>
> I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around
> p, right?
>

Same as above - s/(p)/p/. It should never be necessary to write
pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e)
since
pwm_set_duty_cycle(p, e)
should be the same.

On the other side, I did not see this expression used in any of the patches,
though maybe I missed it.

Thanks,
Guenter



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-16 18:21    [W:0.046 / U:6.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site