Re: [PATCH 12/24] leds: lm3692x: Use led_compose_name()

[Jacek Anaszewski]

Dan,

On 11/08/2018 07:14 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
> On 11/06/2018 04:07 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> Switch to using generic LED support for composing LED class
>> device name.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c b/drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c
>> index 4f413a7..9dfc0f2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c
>> @@ -13,7 +13,6 @@
>>  #include <linux/regmap.h>
>>  #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>> -#include <uapi/linux/uleds.h>
>>  
>>  #define LM36922_MODEL	0
>>  #define LM36923_MODEL	1
>> @@ -95,6 +94,9 @@
>>  #define LM3692X_FAULT_FLAG_SHRT BIT(3)
>>  #define LM3692X_FAULT_FLAG_OPEN BIT(4)
>>  
>> +#define LM36922_NAME "lm36922"
>> +#define LM36923_NAME "lm36923"
>> +
>>  /**
>>   * struct lm3692x_led -
>>   * @lock - Lock for reading/writing the device
>> @@ -103,7 +105,6 @@
>>   * @regmap - Devices register map
>>   * @enable_gpio - VDDIO/EN gpio to enable communication interface
>>   * @regulator - LED supply regulator pointer
>> - * @label - LED label
>>   * @led_enable - LED sync to be enabled
>>   * @model_id - Current device model ID enumerated
>>   */
>> @@ -114,7 +115,6 @@ struct lm3692x_led {
>>  	struct regmap *regmap;
>>  	struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio;
>>  	struct regulator *regulator;
>> -	char label[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
>>  	int led_enable;
>>  	int model_id;
>>  };
>> @@ -325,7 +325,8 @@ static int lm3692x_init(struct lm3692x_led *led)
>>  static int lm3692x_probe_dt(struct lm3692x_led *led)
>>  {
>>  	struct fwnode_handle *child = NULL;
>> -	const char *name;
>> +	struct led_init_data init_data;
>> +	char *model_name;
>>  	int ret;
>>  
>>  	led->enable_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&led->client->dev,
>> @@ -346,17 +347,20 @@ static int lm3692x_probe_dt(struct lm3692x_led *led)
>>  		dev_err(&led->client->dev, "No LED Child node\n");
>>  		return -ENODEV;
>>  	}
>> +	init_data.fwnode = child;
>>  
>> -	fwnode_property_read_string(child, "linux,default-trigger",
>> -				    &led->led_dev.default_trigger);
>> +	if (led->model_id == LM36922_MODEL)
>> +		model_name =  LM36922_NAME;
>> +	else
>> +		model_name =  LM36923_NAME;
>>  
>> -	ret = fwnode_property_read_string(child, "label", &name);
>> +	ret = led_compose_name(child, model_name, ":backlight_cluster",
>> +			       init_data.name);
>>  	if (ret)
>> -		snprintf(led->label, sizeof(led->label),
>> -			"%s::", led->client->name);
>> -	else
>> -		snprintf(led->label, sizeof(led->label),
>> -			 "%s:%s", led->client->name, name);
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	fwnode_property_read_string(child, "linux,default-trigger",
>> +				    &led->led_dev.default_trigger);
>>  
>>  	ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &led->led_enable);
>>  	if (ret) {
>> @@ -364,16 +368,13 @@ static int lm3692x_probe_dt(struct lm3692x_led *led)
>>  		return ret;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	led->led_dev.name = led->label;
>> -
>> -	ret = devm_led_classdev_register(&led->client->dev, &led->led_dev);
>> +	ret = devm_led_classdev_register_ext(&led->client->dev, &led->led_dev,
>> +					     &init_data);
>>  	if (ret) {
>>  		dev_err(&led->client->dev, "led register err: %d\n", ret);
>>  		return ret;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	led->led_dev.dev->of_node = to_of_node(child);
>> -
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -439,8 +440,8 @@ static int lm3692x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>>  }
>>  
>>  static const struct i2c_device_id lm3692x_id[] = {
>> -	{ "lm36922", LM36922_MODEL },
>> -	{ "lm36923", LM36923_MODEL },
>> +	{ LM36922_NAME, LM36922_MODEL },
>> +	{ LM36923_NAME, LM36923_MODEL },
> 
> How is this change relevant?
> No mention in the comments about this change.

Unrelated. It is a remnant from the stage of development, where I had
an impression that i2c_client name is taken from this array
somehow. Only later I learned that it is taken from OF compatible
property after removing vendor prefix with comma.

Afterwards I decide to abide by this change since it seems to be
just an improvement - if I'm adding the string definition anyway,
then why not replace other matching literals?

I will add the explanation if the commit message if there are no
other objections.

>>  	{ }
>>  };
>>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, lm3692x_id);
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski