linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] leds: rgb: leds-ktd202x: Get device properties through fwnode to support ACPI

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]

Message-ID: <CAEth8oHx66Q8esGNNgXnOOT2RJXTFMAo3RJPLHDYh9oewxJKxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:22:59 +0800
From: Kate Hsuan <hpa@...hat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, 
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, 
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	André Apitzsch <git@...tzsch.eu>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] leds: rgb: leds-ktd202x: Get device properties
 through fwnode to support ACPI

Hi Andy,

Thank you for reviewing.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 1:29 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 8:39 AM Kate Hsuan <hpa@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > This LED controller is installed on a Xiaomi pad2 and it is an x86
> > platform. The original driver is based on the device tree and can't be
> > used for this ACPI based system. This patch migrated the driver to use
> > fwnode to access the properties. Moreover, the fwnode API supports the
> > device tree so this work won't affect the original implementations.
>
> ...
>
> > -       int num_channels;
> > +       int num_channels = 0;
>
> Split this assignment, so...
>
> >         int i = 0;
>
> > -       num_channels = of_get_available_child_count(np);
>
> ...it become
>
>   num_channels = 0;
>
> here.
>
> > +       fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(fwnode, child)
> > +               num_channels++;
>

It will look like this:
       num_channels = 0;
       fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(fwnode, child)
              num_channels++;

> ...
>
> > -static int ktd202x_add_led(struct ktd202x *chip, struct device_node *np, unsigned int index)
> > +static int ktd202x_add_led(struct ktd202x *chip,
> > +                          struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > +                          unsigned int index)
>
> Why split over 3 lines? I believe it can be still two or one
> (depending if you use a relaxed limit).

Make it to be one line.

>
> ...
>
> >  static int ktd202x_probe_dt(struct ktd202x *chip)
>
> Perhaps you want to rename this to something like ktd202x_probe_fw().

Sounds good.

>
> ...
>
> > +       fwnode = dev_fwnode(dev);
>
> Will be no use if the bellow applied, right?

Right. It can be dropped.

>
> ...
>
> > -       for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > +       fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(fwnode, child) {
>
> Use device_for_each_child_node() instead.

Okay.

>
> >         }
>
> ...
>
> > -       .shutdown = ktd202x_shutdown,
> > +       .shutdown = ktd202x_shutdown
>
> Stray change.

I know the reason  :)

>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>


-- 
BR,
Kate