Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x

[Jacek Anaszewski]

On 11/30/2016 10:10 AM, Phong Vo wrote:
> +-----Original Message-----
> +From: Jacek Anaszewski [mailto:j.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> +Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:00 PM
> +To: Phong Vo
> +Cc: Mika Westerberg; Rafael J. Wysocki; Richard Purdie; linux-
> +leds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> +acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Loc Ho; Thang Nguyen; patches; Tin Huynh
> +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@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> +> +Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:18 PM
> +> +To: Tin Huynh
> +> +Cc: Mika Westerberg; Rafael J. Wysocki; Richard Purdie; linux-
> +> +leds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> +> +acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>
> +> +>>>> ---
> +> +>>>>  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.
> +
>
> Actually it was Peter Rosin (not Mika) on linux-i2c and the reference to
> that is follows
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/18/732
>
> I am including Robin here.
>
> Thanks.

Thanks for the link. I prefer to stick to the style of the surrounding
code, so let's drop ".id =" and ".driver_data =" from the initializers.

Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski

> +> 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=e46895b71a26da404c4d95cb2bab1a67cf8b20
> +> +bc
> +> +
> +> +--
> +> +Best regards,
> +> +Jacek Anaszewski
> +> --
> +> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds"
> +> in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo
> +> info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> +>
> +>
> +>
> +
> +
> +--
> +Best regards,
> +Jacek Anaszewski