From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752371Ab3JAS0Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:26:16 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:46618 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751082Ab3JAS0N (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:26:13 -0400 Message-ID: <524B13BF.7080902@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 12:26:07 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thierry Reding CC: Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Tony Lindgren , Eric Miao , Haojian Zhuang , Ben Dooks , Kukjin Kim , Simon Horman , Magnus Damm , Guan Xuetao , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, openezx-devel@lists.openezx.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] pwm-backlight: Refactor backlight power on/off 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> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.