On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Brian Norris wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:38:17PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Jun 2016, Brian Norris wrote: > > > The EC_CMD_PWM_{GET,SET}_DUTY commands allow us to control a PWM that is > > > attached to the EC, rather than the main host SoC. The API provides > > > functionality-based (e.g., keyboard light, backlight) or index-based > > > addressing of the PWM(s). Duty cycles are represented by a 16-bit value, > > > where 0 maps to 0% duty cycle and U16_MAX maps to 100%. The period > > > cannot be controlled. > > > > > > This command set is more generic than, e.g., > > > EC_CMD_PWM_{GET,SET}_KEYBOARD_BACKLIGHT and could possibly used to > > > replace it on future products. > > > > > > Let's update the command header to include the definitions. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > v2: no change > > > > > > include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h > > > index 13b630c10d4c..d673575e0ada 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h > > > @@ -949,6 +949,37 @@ struct ec_params_pwm_set_fan_duty { > > > uint32_t percent; > > > } __packed; > > > > > > +#define EC_CMD_PWM_SET_DUTY 0x25 > > > +/* 16 bit duty cycle, 65535 = 100% */ > > > +#define EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY 65535 > > > > Any reason this isn't represented in hex, like we do normally? > > Hex would probably be clearer. I'll try to change that. > > > > +enum ec_pwm_type { > > > + /* All types, indexed by board-specific enum pwm_channel */ > > > + EC_PWM_TYPE_GENERIC = 0, > > > + /* Keyboard backlight */ > > > + EC_PWM_TYPE_KB_LIGHT, > > > + /* Display backlight */ > > > + EC_PWM_TYPE_DISPLAY_LIGHT, > > > + EC_PWM_TYPE_COUNT, > > > +}; > > > > Are these comments really necessary? I'd recommend that if your > > defines require comments, then they are not adequately named. In this > > case however, I'd suggest that they are and the comments are > > superfluous. > > I don't think your rule holds water: there are definitely cases where > defines/enums require (or at least are better with) additional comments. > Sentence-long identifier names are not very readable, but sometimes a > sentence of comment can help. I was generalising. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but in the standard case we can be forthcoming enough with our naming conventions that comments aren't required. > Anyway, I think two of the three are probably unnecessary, if you really > want to ask. The first (EC_PWM_TYPE_GENERIC) seems useful. > > But then, how do you suggest handling this in conjunction with your > kerneldoc suggestion? IIRC, kerneldoc requires that if one > entry/field/parameter is documented, then all most be documented. So > avoid kerneldoc on the enum, and just use inline comments? Sounds reasonable. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html