[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564A0B95.6010603@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:00:05 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Kamil Debski <k.debski@...sung.com>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com,
Joachim Eastwood <manabian@...il.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where
appropriate
On 11/16/2015 08:53 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800
> Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-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@...e-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
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists