From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:26:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] pwm-backlight: Refactor backlight power on/off Message-Id: <524B13BF.7080902@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: References: <1379972467-11243-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <1379972467-11243-2-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <1379972467-11243-2-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 09/23/2013 03:40 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > In preparation for adding an optional regulator and enable GPIO to the > driver, split the power on and power off sequences into separate > functions to reduce code duplication at the multiple call sites. > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c > +static void pwm_backlight_power_off(struct pwm_bl_data *pb) > +{ > + pwm_disable(pb->pwm); Both the call-sites you're replacing do the following before pwm_disable(): pwm_config(pb->pwm, 0, pb->period); While I agree that probably shouldn't be necessary, I think it's at least worth mentioning that in the commit description just to make it obvious that it was a deliberate change. Splitting that change into a separate patch might be reasonable in order to keep refactoring and functional changes separate, although perhaps it's not worth it. There are also a couple unrelated whitespace changes thrown in here.