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 10:00:20 +0100
From:   Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
To:     Phong Vo <pvo@....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>,
        patches <patches@....com>, Tin Huynh <tnhuynh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x

Hi Phong,

On 11/30/2016 09:23 AM, Phong Vo wrote:
> +-----Original Message-----
> +From: Jacek Anaszewski [mailto:j.anaszewski@...sung.com]
> +Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:18 PM
> +To: Tin Huynh
> +Cc: Mika Westerberg; Rafael J. Wysocki; Richard Purdie; linux-
> +leds@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> +acpi@...r.kernel.org; Loc Ho; Thang Nguyen; Phong Vo; patches
> +Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x
> +
> +On 11/30/2016 09:06 AM, Tin Huynh wrote:
> +> 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
> +>>>
>
> Hi Jacek, I am answering on behalf of Tin.
> This patch is for the leds:pca955x driver while the previous one was for
> leds:pca963x driver!
> They are almost the same in the coding construct, but different drivers.

Ah, indeed, that's why I got lost with patch version numbering :-)

> +>>> 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?
>
> It's not vital, but to make it consistent with what was done for pca963x,

For pca963x I applied the version without explicit properties.
Note that this is consistent with pca963x_id array above the added
pca963x_acpi_ids. For pca955x the situation is the same.

> and also per suggestion by Mika on reviewing  a different driver mux:954x in
> another thread.

Could you give a reference to that thread? In the review of V1 of this
patch Mika mentioned "{ "PCA9553", pca9553 }" scheme.

> I would think this would make the definition clearer.
>
> +>> 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
> +
> +You had it already in V1. Please verify if the patch applied to the for-
> +next branch of linux-leds.git has the shape you intended:
> +
> +https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/j.anaszewski/linux-
> +leds.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=e46895b71a26da404c4d95cb2bab1a67cf8b20bc
> +
> +--
> +Best regards,
> +Jacek Anaszewski
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski