| Message ID | 20200919053145.7564-2-post@lespocky.de |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v5,1/3] leds: pwm: Remove platform_data support | expand |
Hi! > Since commit 141f15c66d94 ("leds: pwm: remove header") that platform > interface is not usable from outside and there seems to be no in tree > user anymore. All in-tree users of the leds-pwm driver seem to use DT > currently. Getting rid of the old platform interface will allow the > leds-pwm driver to switch over from 'devm_led_classdev_register()' to > 'devm_led_classdev_register_ext()' later. > @@ -61,6 +56,7 @@ static int led_pwm_set(struct led_classdev *led_cdev, > return pwm_apply_state(led_dat->pwm, &led_dat->pwmstate); > } > > +__attribute__((nonnull)) > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > { This normally goes elsewhere -- right? I'd expect: static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) __attribute__((nonnull)) Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Besides Pavel's note about the __attribute__((nonnull)) position
Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <marek.behun@nic.cz>
Hello Pavel, Am Samstag, 19. September 2020, 11:44:18 CEST schrieb Pavel Machek: > > Since commit 141f15c66d94 ("leds: pwm: remove header") that platform > > interface is not usable from outside and there seems to be no in tree > > user anymore. All in-tree users of the leds-pwm driver seem to use DT > > currently. Getting rid of the old platform interface will allow the > > leds-pwm driver to switch over from 'devm_led_classdev_register()' to > > 'devm_led_classdev_register_ext()' later. > > > > @@ -61,6 +56,7 @@ static int led_pwm_set(struct led_classdev *led_cdev, > > > > return pwm_apply_state(led_dat->pwm, &led_dat->pwmstate); > > > > } > > > > +__attribute__((nonnull)) > > > > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, > > > > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > > > > { > > This normally goes elsewhere -- right? I'd expect: > > > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > __attribute__((nonnull)) I found both variants in kernel code. I can live with both variants and have no strong preference. My initial intention to add it was to get a compiler warning in case someone does not pass a fwnode here, e.g. when using that old platform_data approach (which is supposed to be removed with this patch). You might call it a self check on my own changes. I can also drop that attribute if you don't want that kind of stuff in linux-leds. Greets Alex
Hi! > > > +__attribute__((nonnull)) > > > > > > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, > > > > > > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > > > > > > { > > > > This normally goes elsewhere -- right? I'd expect: > > > > > > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, > > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > > __attribute__((nonnull)) > > I found both variants in kernel code. I can live with both variants and have > no strong preference. > > My initial intention to add it was to get a compiler warning in case someone > does not pass a fwnode here, e.g. when using that old platform_data approach > (which is supposed to be removed with this patch). You might call it a self > check on my own changes. I can also drop that attribute if you don't want > that kind of stuff in linux-leds. I'm okay with it at the second place :-). Thanks, Pavel
Hello Pavel, On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 07:24:41PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > +__attribute__((nonnull)) > > > > > > > > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, > > > > > > > > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > This normally goes elsewhere -- right? I'd expect: > > > > > > > > > static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, > > > struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > > > __attribute__((nonnull)) > > > > I found both variants in kernel code. I can live with both variants and have > > no strong preference. > > > > My initial intention to add it was to get a compiler warning in case someone > > does not pass a fwnode here, e.g. when using that old platform_data approach > > (which is supposed to be removed with this patch). You might call it a self > > check on my own changes. I can also drop that attribute if you don't want > > that kind of stuff in linux-leds. > > I'm okay with it at the second place :-). Should have tried this before, but I actually did now. O:-) If I move the attribute behind, I get this on a W=1 build: CC drivers/leds/leds-pwm.o /home/alex/src/linux/leds/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c:58:1: error: attributes should be specified before the declarator in a function definition static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, ^~~~~~ Because it won't build then, I'll keep it where it is. Meanwhile I worked on all the DT remarks by Rob and I will send v6 soon. Greets Alex
diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c index e35a97c1d828..4e9954f8f7eb 100644 --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c @@ -25,11 +25,6 @@ struct led_pwm { unsigned int max_brightness; }; -struct led_pwm_platform_data { - int num_leds; - struct led_pwm *leds; -}; - struct led_pwm_data { struct led_classdev cdev; struct pwm_device *pwm; @@ -61,6 +56,7 @@ static int led_pwm_set(struct led_classdev *led_cdev, return pwm_apply_state(led_dat->pwm, &led_dat->pwmstate); } +__attribute__((nonnull)) static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, struct led_pwm *led, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) { @@ -74,10 +70,7 @@ static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, led_data->cdev.max_brightness = led->max_brightness; led_data->cdev.flags = LED_CORE_SUSPENDRESUME; - if (fwnode) - led_data->pwm = devm_fwnode_pwm_get(dev, fwnode, NULL); - else - led_data->pwm = devm_pwm_get(dev, led->name); + led_data->pwm = devm_fwnode_pwm_get(dev, fwnode, NULL); if (IS_ERR(led_data->pwm)) return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(led_data->pwm), "unable to request PWM for %s\n", @@ -143,15 +136,11 @@ static int led_pwm_create_fwnode(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv) static int led_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { - struct led_pwm_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev); struct led_pwm_priv *priv; - int count, i; int ret = 0; + int count; - if (pdata) - count = pdata->num_leds; - else - count = device_get_child_node_count(&pdev->dev); + count = device_get_child_node_count(&pdev->dev); if (!count) return -EINVAL; @@ -161,16 +150,7 @@ static int led_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (!priv) return -ENOMEM; - if (pdata) { - for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { - ret = led_pwm_add(&pdev->dev, priv, &pdata->leds[i], - NULL); - if (ret) - break; - } - } else { - ret = led_pwm_create_fwnode(&pdev->dev, priv); - } + ret = led_pwm_create_fwnode(&pdev->dev, priv); if (ret) return ret;
Since commit 141f15c66d94 ("leds: pwm: remove header") that platform interface is not usable from outside and there seems to be no in tree user anymore. All in-tree users of the leds-pwm driver seem to use DT currently. Getting rid of the old platform interface will allow the leds-pwm driver to switch over from 'devm_led_classdev_register()' to 'devm_led_classdev_register_ext()' later. Signed-off-by: Alexander Dahl <post@lespocky.de> Cc: Denis Osterland-Heim <denis.osterland@diehl.com> Cc: Marek Behún <marek.behun@nic.cz> --- Notes: v5: * added this patch to series (replacing another patch with a not working, different approach) drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 30 +++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)