[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190529135821.GK4574@dell>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:58:21 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
Cc: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
broonie@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 6/6] leds: lm36274: Introduce the TI LM36274
LED driver
On Fri, 24 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/23/19 9:09 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
> > Pavel
> >
> > Thanks for the review
> >
> > On 5/23/19 7:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm36274.c
> > >
> > > > +static int lm36274_parse_dt(struct lm36274 *lm36274_data)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct fwnode_handle *child = NULL;
> > > > + char label[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
> > > > + struct device *dev = &lm36274_data->pdev->dev;
> > > > + const char *name;
> > > > + int child_cnt;
> > > > + int ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* There should only be 1 node */
> > > > + child_cnt = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
> > > > + if (child_cnt != 1)
> > > > + return ret;
> > >
> > > I'd do explicit "return -EINVAL" here.
> > >
> >
> > ACK
> >
> > > > +static int lm36274_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct ti_lmu *lmu = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > > > + struct lm36274 *lm36274_data;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + lm36274_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lm36274_data),
> > > > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!lm36274_data) {
> > > > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > And certainly do "return -ENOMEM" explicitly here.
> > >
> >
> > ACK
> >
> > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
>
> I've done all amendments requested by Pavel and updated branch
> ib-leds-mfd-regulator on linux-leds.git, but in the same time
What do you mean by updated? You cannot update an 'ib' (immutable
branch). Immutable means that it cannot change, by definition.
> dropped the merge from the for-next.
>
> We will proceed further once we clarify the issue of cross-merging
> recently raised again by Linus.
>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists