Re: [PATCH v7 11/12] leds: Add common LED binding parsing support to LED class/core

Pavel Machek
2019-12-21T19:38:03Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4426 bytes --]

Hi!

> Qucik grep for 'for_each' or 'linux,default-trigger' or

quick.

> If init_data is goven but no starting point for node lookup - then

is given.

> (parent) device's own DT node is used. If no led-compatible is given,
> then of_match is searched for. If neither led-compatible not of_match

nor of_match.

> is given then device's own node or passed starting point are used as
> such.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
> ---
>
> No changes since v6
>
> drivers/leds/led-class.c | 99 +++++++++++++--
> drivers/leds/led-core.c | 258 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> include/linux/leds.h | 94 ++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 385 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)

Quite a lot of code added here. Can I trust you that we we'll delete
320 lines by converting driver or two?

> +static void led_add_props(struct led_classdev *ld, struct led_properties *props)
> +{
> + if (props->default_trigger)
> + ld->default_trigger = props->default_trigger;
> + /*
> + * According to binding docs the LED is by-default turned OFF unless
> + * default_state is used to indicate it should be ON or that state
> + * should be kept as is
> + */
> + if (props->default_state) {
> + ld->brightness = LED_OFF;
> + if (!strcmp(props->default_state, "on"))
> + ld->brightness = LED_FULL;

Max brightness is not always == LED_FULL these days.

> @@ -322,6 +398,10 @@ int led_classdev_register_ext(struct device *parent,
> led_cdev->name);
>
> return 0;
> +err_out:
> + if (led_cdev->fwnode_owned)
> + fwnode_handle_put(fw);
> + return ret;
> }

led_cdev->fwnode_owned = false here?

> +/**
> + * led_find_fwnode - find fwnode for led
> + * @parent LED controller device
> + * @init_data led init data with match information
> + *
> + * Scans the firmware nodes and returns node matching the given init_data.
> + * NOTE: Function increases refcount for found node. Caller must decrease
> + * refcount using fwnode_handle_put when finished with node.
> + */
> +struct fwnode_handle *led_find_fwnode(struct device *parent,
> + struct led_init_data *init_data)
> +{
> + struct fwnode_handle *fw;
> +
> + /*
> + * This should never be called W/O init data. We could always return

without

> + * For now we do only do node look-up for drivers which populate
> + * the new match properties. We could and perhaps should do
> + * fw = dev_fwnode(parent); if given fwnode is NULL. But in order to
> + * not break existing setups we keep the old behaviour and just directly

not to break.

> + /*
> + * Simple things are pretty. I think simplest is to use DT node-name
> + * for matching the node with LED - same way regulators use the node
> + * name to match with desc.
> + *
> + * This may not work with existing LED DT entries if the node name has
> + * been freely selectible. In order to this to work the binding doc

selectable?

> + /**
> + * Please note, logic changed - if invalid property is found we bail
> + * early out without parsing the rest of the properties. Originally
> + * this was the case only for 'label' property. I don't know the
> + * rationale behind original logic allowing invalid properties to be
> + * given. If there is a reason then we should reconsider this.
> + * Intuitively it feels correct to just yell and quit if we hit value we
> + * don't understand - but intuition may be wrong at times :)
> + */

Is this supposed to be linuxdoc?

> +/**
> + * led_find_fwnode - find fwnode matching given LED init data
> + * @parent: LED controller device this LED is driven by
> + * @init_data: the LED class device initialization data
> + *
> + * Find the fw node matching given LED init data.
> + * NOTE: Function increases refcount for found node. Caller must decrease
> + * refcount using fwnode_handle_put when finished with node.
> + *
> + * Returns: node handle or NULL if matching fw node was not found
> + */
> +struct fwnode_handle *led_find_fwnode(struct device *parent,
> + struct led_init_data *init_data);
> +

If function _gets_ the node and increments its usage count, is it
normally called "get"?

Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]