Re: [PATCH v8 5/7] leds: Add driver for ASUS Transformer LEDs

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 28 May 2026, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:

> From: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ASUS Transformer tablets have a green and an amber LED on both the Pad
> and the Dock. If both LEDs are enabled simultaneously, the emitted light
> will be yellow.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/leds/Kconfig                    |  11 +++
>  drivers/leds/Makefile                   |   1 +
>  drivers/leds/leds-asus-transformer-ec.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 137 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/leds/leds-asus-transformer-ec.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/Kconfig b/drivers/leds/Kconfig
> index f4a0a3c8c870..f637d23400a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/leds/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/leds/Kconfig
> @@ -120,6 +120,17 @@ config LEDS_OSRAM_AMS_AS3668
>  	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>  	  will be called leds-as3668.
>  
> +config LEDS_ASUS_TRANSFORMER_EC
> +	tristate "LED Support for Asus Transformer charging LED"
> +	depends on LEDS_CLASS
> +	depends on MFD_ASUS_TRANSFORMER_EC
> +	help
> +	  This option enables support for charging indicator on
> +	  Asus Transformer's Pad and it's Dock.
> +
> +	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> +	  will be called leds-asus-transformer-ec.
> +
>  config LEDS_AW200XX
>  	tristate "LED support for Awinic AW20036/AW20054/AW20072/AW20108"
>  	depends on LEDS_CLASS
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/Makefile b/drivers/leds/Makefile
> index 8fdb45d5b439..d5395c3f1124 100644
> --- a/drivers/leds/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/leds/Makefile
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_AN30259A)		+= leds-an30259a.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_APU)			+= leds-apu.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_ARIEL)		+= leds-ariel.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_AS3668)		+= leds-as3668.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_ASUS_TRANSFORMER_EC)	+= leds-asus-transformer-ec.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_AW200XX)		+= leds-aw200xx.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_AW2013)		+= leds-aw2013.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_BCM6328)		+= leds-bcm6328.o
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-asus-transformer-ec.c b/drivers/leds/leds-asus-transformer-ec.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..09503e76331c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-asus-transformer-ec.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/leds.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/asus-transformer-ec.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +
> +enum {
> +	ASUSEC_LED_AMBER,
> +	ASUSEC_LED_GREEN,
> +	ASUSEC_LED_MAX
> +};
> +
> +struct asus_ec_led_config {
> +	const char *name;
> +	unsigned int color;
> +	unsigned long long ctrl_bit;

Should we use 'u64' here instead of 'unsigned long long' to align with standard
kernel integer types?

> +};
> +
> +struct asus_ec_led {
> +	struct asus_ec_leds_data *ddata;
> +	struct led_classdev cdev;
> +	unsigned long long ctrl_bit;

Should we use 'u64' here as well to keep it consistent?

> +};
> +
> +struct asus_ec_leds_data {
> +	const struct asusec_core *ec;
> +	struct asus_ec_led leds[ASUSEC_LED_MAX];
> +};
> +
> +static const struct asus_ec_led_config asus_ec_leds[] = {
> +	[ASUSEC_LED_AMBER] = {
> +		.name = "amber",
> +		.color = LED_COLOR_ID_AMBER,
> +		.ctrl_bit = ASUSEC_CTL_LED_AMBER,
> +	},
> +	[ASUSEC_LED_GREEN] = {
> +		.name = "green",
> +		.color = LED_COLOR_ID_GREEN,
> +		.ctrl_bit = ASUSEC_CTL_LED_GREEN,
> +	},
> +};
> +
> +static enum led_brightness asus_ec_led_get_brightness(struct led_classdev *cdev)
> +{
> +	struct asus_ec_led *led = container_of(cdev, struct asus_ec_led, cdev);
> +	const struct asusec_core *ec = led->ddata->ec;

I'm getting confused here.

ddata is what I'd be calling the device data struct passed by the parent?

In fact, ddata is a little known concept in Leds.  Any reason to go for
this over the standard nomenclature?

> +	u64 ctl;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = asus_dockram_access_ctl(ec->dockram, &ctl, 0, 0);

Did we discuss preferring regmap already?

> +	if (ret)
> +		return LED_OFF;
> +
> +	return ctl & led->ctrl_bit ? LED_ON : LED_OFF;
> +}
> +
> +static int asus_ec_led_set_brightness(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> +				      enum led_brightness brightness)
> +{
> +	struct asus_ec_led *led = container_of(cdev, struct asus_ec_led, cdev);
> +	const struct asusec_core *ec = led->ddata->ec;
> +
> +	if (brightness)
> +		return asus_dockram_access_ctl(ec->dockram, NULL,
> +					       led->ctrl_bit, led->ctrl_bit);
> +
> +	return asus_dockram_access_ctl(ec->dockram, NULL, led->ctrl_bit, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static int asus_ec_led_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	const struct asusec_core *ec = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> +	struct asus_ec_leds_data *ddata;
> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	int i, ret;

Could we declare the loop counter 'i' directly within the 'for' statement's
scope to keep its scope limited? For example, 'for (int i = 0; ...)'.

> +
> +	ddata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ddata), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!ddata)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ddata);
> +	ddata->ec = ec;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < ASUSEC_LED_MAX; i++) {

Nit: for (int i = ...

> +		const struct asus_ec_led_config *cfg = &asus_ec_leds[i];
> +		struct asus_ec_led *led = &ddata->leds[i];
> +
> +		led->cdev.name = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s::%s",
> +						ddata->ec->name, cfg->name);
> +		if (!led->cdev.name)
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +		led->cdev.max_brightness = 1;
> +		led->cdev.color = cfg->color;
> +		led->cdev.flags = LED_CORE_SUSPENDRESUME | LED_RETAIN_AT_SHUTDOWN;
> +		led->cdev.brightness_get = asus_ec_led_get_brightness;
> +		led->cdev.brightness_set_blocking = asus_ec_led_set_brightness;
> +
> +		led->ddata = ddata;
> +		led->ctrl_bit = cfg->ctrl_bit;
> +
> +		ret = devm_led_classdev_register(dev, &led->cdev);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
> +					     "failed to register %s LED\n",
> +					     cfg->name);

Should we capitalise the error message here to match our style guidelines
(e.g. 'Failed to register...')?

> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct platform_driver asus_ec_led_driver = {
> +	.driver.name = "asus-transformer-ec-led",
> +	.probe = asus_ec_led_probe,
> +};
> +module_platform_driver(asus_ec_led_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:asus-transformer-ec-led");
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>");
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@xxxxxxxxx>");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ASUS Transformer's charging LED driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 
> 

-- 
Lee Jones