linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] pwm-backlight: Refactor backlight power on/off

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:26:07 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
CC:	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	openezx-devel@...ts.openezx.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] pwm-backlight: Refactor backlight power on/off

On 09/23/2013 03:40 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> In preparation for adding an optional regulator and enable GPIO to the
> driver, split the power on and power off sequences into separate
> functions to reduce code duplication at the multiple call sites.

> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c

> +static void pwm_backlight_power_off(struct pwm_bl_data *pb)
> +{
> +	pwm_disable(pb->pwm);

Both the call-sites you're replacing do the following before pwm_disable():

		pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period);

While I agree that probably shouldn't be necessary, I think it's at
least worth mentioning that in the commit description just to make it
obvious that it was a deliberate change. Splitting that change into a
separate patch might be reasonable in order to keep refactoring and
functional changes separate, although perhaps it's not worth it.

There are also a couple unrelated whitespace changes thrown in here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/