From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:00:05 -0800 Message-ID: <564A0B95.6010603@roeck-us.net> References: <1447664207-24370-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1447664207-24370-5-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <5649FD5B.3000208@roeck-us.net> <20151116175322.48dba6f9@bbrezillon> Reply-To: linux-0h96xk9xTtrk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151116175322.48dba6f9@bbrezillon> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Boris Brezillon Cc: Thierry Reding , linux-pwm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Mike Turquette , Stephen Boyd , linux-clk-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Kamil Debski , lm-sensors-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org, Jean Delvare , Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Bryan Wu , Richard Purdie , Jacek Anaszewski , linux-leds-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, Joachim Eastwood , Thomas Petazzoni , Heiko Stuebner , linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Jingoo Han , Lee Jones List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On 11/16/2015 08:53 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800 > Guenter Roeck 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 >>> --- >>> 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? > Same as above - s/(p)/p/. It should never be necessary to write pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e) since pwm_set_duty_cycle(p, e) should be the same. On the other side, I did not see this expression used in any of the patches, though maybe I missed it. Thanks, Guenter