Hi!

> >>>+#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/module.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/spmi.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/of_device.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/device.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/types.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/string.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/mutex.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/sysfs.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/led-class-flash.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/delay.h>
> >>>+#include <linux/regmap.h>
> >>>+#include <dt-bindings/leds/leds-qcom-spmi-flash.h>
> >>
> >>Please sort includes alphabetically.
> >
> >No need to do that.
> 
> Keeping the includes sorted eliminates the risk of introducing duplicates
> and allows for faster lookup.
> 
> What gain is in having them unsorted?

It is not there is gain in them unsorted; it is that keeping sorted
order is not worth the effort.

> >>>+#define FLASH_SAFETY_TIMER		0x40
> >>
> >>Namespacing prefix is needed for macros, e.g. QCOM_FLASH*.
> >
> >No need for that in .c files.
> 
> In general it eliminates the risk of name clash with other subsystems
> headers.
> 
> And actually the prefix here should be QCOM_LED_FLASH to avoid ambiguity
> with flash memory. If you dropped the vendor prefix then you'd get
> possible name clash with led-class-flash.h namespace prefix.

I believe the cost (longer macro names) outweights the benefits here.

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek