From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jacek Anaszewski Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] leds: netxbig: add device tree binding Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:10:56 +0200 Message-ID: <55FFC9A0.1020608@samsung.com> References: <1442505571-9744-1-git-send-email-simon.guinot@sequanux.org> <1442505571-9744-2-git-send-email-simon.guinot@sequanux.org> <55FBD679.2020402@samsung.com> <20150918103006.GM7306@kw.sim.vm.gnt> <55FBEC38.6020209@samsung.com> <20150918131011.GN7306@kw.sim.vm.gnt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout1.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.11]:16706 "EHLO mailout1.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751658AbbIUJLB (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 05:11:01 -0400 In-reply-to: <20150918131011.GN7306@kw.sim.vm.gnt> Sender: linux-leds-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org To: Simon Guinot Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , Alexandre Courbot , Linus Walleij , Bryan Wu , Vincent Donnefort , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Richard Purdie , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Gregory Clement , Yoann Sculo , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth On 09/18/2015 03:10 PM, Simon Guinot wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:49:28PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>>> >>>> Moreover, if you switched to using devm* prefixed version of >>>> gpio_request_one and led_classdev_reqister, you could simplify >>>> the error paths in the driver. >>> >>> Yes, I have a pending patch for this conversion. But since it is not >>> really related with the subject of this patch series (add DT support), >>> I was planning to send it next. >>> >>> Do you want me to include this patch into this series. >> >> Why not, if you have it ready to go. If it needs some polishing, >> we can live with what we have now. > > No, the patch is ready. I'll add it. > >>>>> +static const struct of_device_id of_netxbig_leds_match[] = { >>>>> + { .compatible = "lacie,netxbig-leds", }, >>>>> + {}, >>>>> +}; >>>>> +#else >>>>> +static int netxbig_leds_get_of_pdata(struct device *dev, >>>>> + struct netxbig_led_platform_data *pdata) >>>> >>>> s/static int/static inline int/ >>> >>> Is that not already the case with modern compiler ? >> >> Could you elaborate on this? > > There is not much to say. netxbig_leds_get_of_pdata is a single line of > code. I am not a gcc expert but I am quite confident that this function > will be inlined anyway (given the optimisation level used to compile the > Linux kernel). That's it. > > But there is nothing wrong by adding "inline" neither. Right. All the more, this is a common pattern for no-ops, also in *.c files. -- Best Regards, Jacek Anaszewski From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: j.anaszewski@samsung.com (Jacek Anaszewski) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:10:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 1/3] leds: netxbig: add device tree binding In-Reply-To: <20150918131011.GN7306@kw.sim.vm.gnt> References: <1442505571-9744-1-git-send-email-simon.guinot@sequanux.org> <1442505571-9744-2-git-send-email-simon.guinot@sequanux.org> <55FBD679.2020402@samsung.com> <20150918103006.GM7306@kw.sim.vm.gnt> <55FBEC38.6020209@samsung.com> <20150918131011.GN7306@kw.sim.vm.gnt> Message-ID: <55FFC9A0.1020608@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/18/2015 03:10 PM, Simon Guinot wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:49:28PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>>> >>>> Moreover, if you switched to using devm* prefixed version of >>>> gpio_request_one and led_classdev_reqister, you could simplify >>>> the error paths in the driver. >>> >>> Yes, I have a pending patch for this conversion. But since it is not >>> really related with the subject of this patch series (add DT support), >>> I was planning to send it next. >>> >>> Do you want me to include this patch into this series. >> >> Why not, if you have it ready to go. If it needs some polishing, >> we can live with what we have now. > > No, the patch is ready. I'll add it. > >>>>> +static const struct of_device_id of_netxbig_leds_match[] = { >>>>> + { .compatible = "lacie,netxbig-leds", }, >>>>> + {}, >>>>> +}; >>>>> +#else >>>>> +static int netxbig_leds_get_of_pdata(struct device *dev, >>>>> + struct netxbig_led_platform_data *pdata) >>>> >>>> s/static int/static inline int/ >>> >>> Is that not already the case with modern compiler ? >> >> Could you elaborate on this? > > There is not much to say. netxbig_leds_get_of_pdata is a single line of > code. I am not a gcc expert but I am quite confident that this function > will be inlined anyway (given the optimisation level used to compile the > Linux kernel). That's it. > > But there is nothing wrong by adding "inline" neither. Right. All the more, this is a common pattern for no-ops, also in *.c files. -- Best Regards, Jacek Anaszewski