From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Brezillon Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:00:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/24] misc: max77693-haptic: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate Message-Id: <20151116170040.00110079@bbrezillon> List-Id: References: <1447664207-24370-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1447664207-24370-6-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <5649D5D0.6080204@samsung.com> <20151116145509.3ea50eb0@bbrezillon> <5649FC75.8020203@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <5649FC75.8020203@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:55:33 -0800 Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 11/16/2015 05:55 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:10:40 +0900 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >> W dniu 16.11.2015 o 17:56, Boris Brezillon pisze: > >>> Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field. > >>> Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic > >>> update. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon > >>> --- > >>> Patch generated with the following coccinelle script: > >>> > >>> --->8--- > >>> virtual patch > >>> > >>> @@ > >>> struct pwm_device *p; > >>> expression e; > >>> @@ > >>> ( > >>> -(p)->polarity = e; > >>> +pwm_set_polarity((p), e); > >>> | > >>> -(p)->polarity > >>> +pwm_get_polarity((p)) > >>> | > >>> -(p)->period = e; > >>> +pwm_set_period((p), e); > >>> | > >>> -(p)->period > >>> +pwm_get_period((p)) > >>> | > >>> -(p)->duty_cycle = e; > >>> +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e); > >>> | > >>> -(p)->duty_cycle > >>> +pwm_get_duty_cycle((p)) > >>> ) > >>> --->8--- > >>> --- > >>> drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c | 7 ++++--- > >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c > >>> index 6d96bff..a038fb3 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c > >>> @@ -70,10 +70,11 @@ struct max77693_haptic { > >>> > >>> static int max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle(struct max77693_haptic *haptic) > >>> { > >>> - int delta = (haptic->pwm_dev->period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2; > >>> + int delta = (pwm_get_period((haptic->pwm_dev)) + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2; > >> > >> Double parentheses over argument are not needed so just: > >> pwm_get_period(haptic->pwm_dev) + ... > > > > Actually it was generated with coccinelle, hence I didn't fix existing > > coding style issues, but I have no problem fixing them. > > > There was no existing coding style issue. Your coccinelle script introduces it. > You might want to consider updating your script and remove the unnecessary (( )) > from it. My bad, you are right: my script is buggy. I'll fix that. Thanks, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com