Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800
Guenter Roeck <linux-0h96xk9xTtrk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > 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 <boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
> > ---
> > 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))
> 
> s/((p))/(p)/
> 
> > |
> > -(p)->period = e;
> > +pwm_set_period((p), e);
> > |
> > -(p)->period
> > +pwm_get_period((p))
> 
> s/((p))/(p)/
> 
> > |
> > -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
> > +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
> 
> The (p) seems unnecessary here.

I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around
p, right?




-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com