linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x

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:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:06:18 +0700
From:   Tin Huynh <tnhuynh@....com>
To:     Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
Cc:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Loc Ho <lho@....com>, Thang Nguyen <tqnguyen@....com>,
        Phong Vo <pvo@....com>, patches <patches@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Jacek Anaszewski
<j.anaszewski@...sung.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/30/2016 08:51 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tin,
>>
>> How this patch is different from the one already merged?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jacek Anaszewski
>>
>> On 11/30/2016 04:08 AM, Tin Huynh wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch enables ACPI support for leds-pca955x driver.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tin Huynh <tnhuynh@....com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c |   22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Change from V2:
>>>  -Correct coding conventions.
>>>
>>> Change from V1:
>>>  -Remove CONFIG_ACPI.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c b/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c
>>> index 840401a..b168ebe 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c
>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
>>>   *  bits the chip supports.
>>>   */
>>>
>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>  #include <linux/module.h>
>>>  #include <linux/delay.h>
>>>  #include <linux/string.h>
>>> @@ -100,6 +101,15 @@ struct pca955x_chipdef {
>>>  };
>>>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, pca955x_id);
>>>
>>> +static const struct acpi_device_id pca955x_acpi_ids[] = {
>>> +    { .id = "PCA9550", .driver_data = pca9550 },
>>> +    { .id = "PCA9551", .driver_data = pca9551 },
>>> +    { .id = "PCA9552", .driver_data = pca9552 },
>>> +    { .id = "PCA9553", .driver_data = pca9553 },
>>> +    { }
>
>
> OK, I see that you brought back explicit properties in the
> structure initializer. Is there some vital reason for that?
> You're mentioning "correcting coding conventions" in the
> patch changelog. checkpatch.pl --strict doesn't complain about
> that, so what coding conventions you have on mind?


>
>
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, pca955x_acpi_ids);
>>> +
>>>  struct pca955x {
>>>      struct mutex lock;
>>>      struct pca955x_led *leds;
>>> @@ -250,7 +260,16 @@ static int pca955x_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>>      struct led_platform_data *pdata;
>>>      int i, err;
>>>
>>> -    chip = &pca955x_chipdefs[id->driver_data];
>>> +    if (id) {
>>> +        chip = &pca955x_chipdefs[id->driver_data];
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id;

I added '{}' follow if