Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] leds: lp8860: Update the LED label generation

[Dan Murphy]

Jacek

On 12/05/2017 01:56 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> On 12/04/2017 02:11 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>> Jacek
>>
>> On 12/03/2017 07:57 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>> Dan,
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2017 05:56 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
>>>> Fix the LED label generation for the LP8860 to
>>>> conform with the
>>>>
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/common.txt
>>>>
>>>> document indicating the LED label should be part of a
>>>> child node to the device parent.  If no label is
>>>> in the child node then the LED label is created based
>>>> on the parent node name and the alternate name passed in.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> v6 - New patch to use the new LED class API
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/leds/leds-lp8860.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-lp8860.c b/drivers/leds/leds-lp8860.c
>>>> index 3e70775a2d54..26bbfa144402 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-lp8860.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lp8860.c
>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>>>>  #include <linux/of_gpio.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>>>>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>> +#include <uapi/linux/uleds.h>
>>>>  
>>>>  #define LP8860_DISP_CL1_BRT_MSB		0x00
>>>>  #define LP8860_DISP_CL1_BRT_LSB		0x01
>>>> @@ -86,8 +87,6 @@
>>>>  
>>>>  #define LP8860_CLEAR_FAULTS		0x01
>>>>  
>>>> -#define LP8860_DISP_LED_NAME		"display_cluster"
>>>> -
>>>>  /**
>>>>   * struct lp8860_led -
>>>>   * @lock - Lock for reading/writing the device
>>>> @@ -107,7 +106,7 @@ struct lp8860_led {
>>>>  	struct regmap *eeprom_regmap;
>>>>  	struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio;
>>>>  	struct regulator *regulator;
>>>> -	const char *label;
>>>> +	char label[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>>  struct lp8860_eeprom_reg {
>>>> @@ -318,7 +317,7 @@ static const struct regmap_config lp8860_regmap_config = {
>>>>  	.max_register = LP8860_EEPROM_UNLOCK,
>>>>  	.reg_defaults = lp8860_reg_defs,
>>>>  	.num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(lp8860_reg_defs),
>>>> -	.cache_type = REGCACHE_NONE,
>>>> +	.cache_type = REGCACHE_RBTREE,
>>>
>>> This seems to be an unrelated change.
>>> Please split it to the separate patch and explain its merit.
>>
>> ACK.  It will be a separate patch
>>
>>>
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>>  static const struct reg_default lp8860_eeprom_defs[] = {
>>>> @@ -356,7 +355,7 @@ static const struct regmap_config lp8860_eeprom_regmap_config = {
>>>>  	.max_register = LP8860_EEPROM_REG_24,
>>>>  	.reg_defaults = lp8860_eeprom_defs,
>>>>  	.num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(lp8860_eeprom_defs),
>>>> -	.cache_type = REGCACHE_NONE,
>>>> +	.cache_type = REGCACHE_RBTREE,
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>>  static int lp8860_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>>> @@ -365,19 +364,23 @@ static int lp8860_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>>>  	int ret;
>>>>  	struct lp8860_led *led;
>>>>  	struct device_node *np = client->dev.of_node;
>>>> +	struct device_node *child_node;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!client->dev.of_node)
>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>>  
>>>>  	led = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*led), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>  	if (!led)
>>>>  		return -ENOMEM;
>>>>  
>>>> -	led->label = LP8860_DISP_LED_NAME;
>>>> +	for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child_node) {
>>>> +		led->led_dev.default_trigger = of_get_property(child_node,
>>>> +						    "linux,default-trigger",
>>>> +						    NULL);
>>>>  
>>>> -	if (client->dev.of_node) {
>>>> -		ret = of_property_read_string(np, "label", &led->label);
>>>> -		if (ret) {
>>>> -			dev_err(&client->dev, "Missing label in dt\n");
>>>> -			return -EINVAL;
>>>> -		}
>>>> +		of_led_compose_name(np, child_node, "white:backlight",
>>>> +				sizeof("white:backlight"),
>>>> +				led->label);
>>>
>>> Let's skip it for now.
>>
>> I will make the same change here as I do for the lm3692x driver.
>>
>>>
>>> Please also CC driver author always when you're modifying it.
>>
>> The author was on the email.
>>
>> It is me.  ;)
>>
>> MODULE_AUTHOR("Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx>");
> 
> 
> OK, but the author of the driver touched by the patch 6/6
> is different :-)
> 

True.  This patch was dropped in v7.



Dan

-- 
------------------
Dan Murphy