[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <844845d6-01fe-50c4-94cd-e19ce8a5d060@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 18:36:01 +0200
From: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@...com>, dmurphy@...com,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: tlc591xx: update the maximum brightness
On 10/13/19 1:45 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> @@ -112,11 +113,11 @@ tlc591xx_brightness_set(struct led_classdev *led_cdev,
>>> struct tlc591xx_priv *priv = led->priv;
>>> int err;
>>>
>>> - switch (brightness) {
>>> + switch ((int)brightness) {
>>> case 0:
>
> Can we get a rid of the cast here? Do we need to move away from the
> enum for the brightness?
I at first also wanted to ask for dropping the cast but first tried
to do it myself. Then I found out compiler (or sparse, I don't recall
exactly) complains about TLC591XX_MAX_BRIGHTNESS not being a value of
enum led_brighteess type. That's the reason for the cast Jean added,
I presume.
>> Added tag:
>>
>> Fixes: e370d010a5fe ("leds: tlc591xx: Driver for the TI 8/16 Channel i2c
>> LED driver")
>>
>> and applied to the for-5.5 branch.
>
> Actually, careful with the Fixes tag. -stable people will want to
> apply it, and it may not be a good idea in this case. Maximum
> brightness of 256 is pretty unusual, so I'd call this "a bit risky".
I entirely disagree. Not seeing anything risky in that since
max_brightness is also initialized to this value. If userspace properly
uses the ABI, then it will be safe.
> Best regards,
> Pavel
>
--
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski
Powered by blists - more mailing lists