Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mfd: cros_ec: add EC_PWM function definitions

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Brian Norris wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:38:17PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Jun 2016, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > The EC_CMD_PWM_{GET,SET}_DUTY commands allow us to control a PWM that is
> > > attached to the EC, rather than the main host SoC. The API provides
> > > functionality-based (e.g., keyboard light, backlight) or index-based
> > > addressing of the PWM(s). Duty cycles are represented by a 16-bit value,
> > > where 0 maps to 0% duty cycle and U16_MAX maps to 100%. The period
> > > cannot be controlled.
> > > 
> > > This command set is more generic than, e.g.,
> > > EC_CMD_PWM_{GET,SET}_KEYBOARD_BACKLIGHT and could possibly used to
> > > replace it on future products.
> > > 
> > > Let's update the command header to include the definitions.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > > v2: no change
> > > 
> > >  include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
> > > index 13b630c10d4c..d673575e0ada 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
> > > @@ -949,6 +949,37 @@ struct ec_params_pwm_set_fan_duty {
> > >  	uint32_t percent;
> > >  } __packed;
> > >  
> > > +#define EC_CMD_PWM_SET_DUTY 0x25
> > > +/* 16 bit duty cycle, 65535 = 100% */
> > > +#define EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY 65535
> > 
> > Any reason this isn't represented in hex, like we do normally?
> 
> Hex would probably be clearer. I'll try to change that.
> 
> > > +enum ec_pwm_type {
> > > +	/* All types, indexed by board-specific enum pwm_channel */
> > > +	EC_PWM_TYPE_GENERIC = 0,
> > > +	/* Keyboard backlight */
> > > +	EC_PWM_TYPE_KB_LIGHT,
> > > +	/* Display backlight */
> > > +	EC_PWM_TYPE_DISPLAY_LIGHT,
> > > +	EC_PWM_TYPE_COUNT,
> > > +};
> > 
> > Are these comments really necessary?  I'd recommend that if your
> > defines require comments, then they are not adequately named.  In this
> > case however, I'd suggest that they are and the comments are
> > superfluous.
> 
> I don't think your rule holds water: there are definitely cases where
> defines/enums require (or at least are better with) additional comments.
> Sentence-long identifier names are not very readable, but sometimes a
> sentence of comment can help.

I was generalising.  There will always be exceptions to the rule, but
in the standard case we can be forthcoming enough with our naming
conventions that comments aren't required.

> Anyway, I think two of the three are probably unnecessary, if you really
> want to ask. The first (EC_PWM_TYPE_GENERIC) seems useful.
> 
> But then, how do you suggest handling this in conjunction with your
> kerneldoc suggestion? IIRC, kerneldoc requires that if one
> entry/field/parameter is documented, then all most be documented. So
> avoid kerneldoc on the enum, and just use inline comments?

Sounds reasonable.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog