Dan,
On 11/08/2018 07:14 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
> On 11/06/2018 04:07 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> Switch to using generic LED support for composing LED class
>> device name.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c b/drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c
>> index 4f413a7..9dfc0f2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm3692x.c
>> @@ -13,7 +13,6 @@
>> #include <linux/regmap.h>
>> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> -#include <uapi/linux/uleds.h>
>>
>> #define LM36922_MODEL 0
>> #define LM36923_MODEL 1
>> @@ -95,6 +94,9 @@
>> #define LM3692X_FAULT_FLAG_SHRT BIT(3)
>> #define LM3692X_FAULT_FLAG_OPEN BIT(4)
>>
>> +#define LM36922_NAME "lm36922"
>> +#define LM36923_NAME "lm36923"
>> +
>> /**
>> * struct lm3692x_led -
>> * @lock - Lock for reading/writing the device
>> @@ -103,7 +105,6 @@
>> * @regmap - Devices register map
>> * @enable_gpio - VDDIO/EN gpio to enable communication interface
>> * @regulator - LED supply regulator pointer
>> - * @label - LED label
>> * @led_enable - LED sync to be enabled
>> * @model_id - Current device model ID enumerated
>> */
>> @@ -114,7 +115,6 @@ struct lm3692x_led {
>> struct regmap *regmap;
>> struct gpio_desc *enable_gpio;
>> struct regulator *regulator;
>> - char label[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE];
>> int led_enable;
>> int model_id;
>> };
>> @@ -325,7 +325,8 @@ static int lm3692x_init(struct lm3692x_led *led)
>> static int lm3692x_probe_dt(struct lm3692x_led *led)
>> {
>> struct fwnode_handle *child = NULL;
>> - const char *name;
>> + struct led_init_data init_data;
>> + char *model_name;
>> int ret;
>>
>> led->enable_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&led->client->dev,
>> @@ -346,17 +347,20 @@ static int lm3692x_probe_dt(struct lm3692x_led *led)
>> dev_err(&led->client->dev, "No LED Child node\n");
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
>> + init_data.fwnode = child;
>>
>> - fwnode_property_read_string(child, "linux,default-trigger",
>> - &led->led_dev.default_trigger);
>> + if (led->model_id == LM36922_MODEL)
>> + model_name = LM36922_NAME;
>> + else
>> + model_name = LM36923_NAME;
>>
>> - ret = fwnode_property_read_string(child, "label", &name);
>> + ret = led_compose_name(child, model_name, ":backlight_cluster",
>> + init_data.name);
>> if (ret)
>> - snprintf(led->label, sizeof(led->label),
>> - "%s::", led->client->name);
>> - else
>> - snprintf(led->label, sizeof(led->label),
>> - "%s:%s", led->client->name, name);
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + fwnode_property_read_string(child, "linux,default-trigger",
>> + &led->led_dev.default_trigger);
>>
>> ret = fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &led->led_enable);
>> if (ret) {
>> @@ -364,16 +368,13 @@ static int lm3692x_probe_dt(struct lm3692x_led *led)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> - led->led_dev.name = led->label;
>> -
>> - ret = devm_led_classdev_register(&led->client->dev, &led->led_dev);
>> + ret = devm_led_classdev_register_ext(&led->client->dev, &led->led_dev,
>> + &init_data);
>> if (ret) {
>> dev_err(&led->client->dev, "led register err: %d\n", ret);
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> - led->led_dev.dev->of_node = to_of_node(child);
>> -
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -439,8 +440,8 @@ static int lm3692x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>> }
>>
>> static const struct i2c_device_id lm3692x_id[] = {
>> - { "lm36922", LM36922_MODEL },
>> - { "lm36923", LM36923_MODEL },
>> + { LM36922_NAME, LM36922_MODEL },
>> + { LM36923_NAME, LM36923_MODEL },
>
> How is this change relevant?
> No mention in the comments about this change.
Unrelated. It is a remnant from the stage of development, where I had
an impression that i2c_client name is taken from this array
somehow. Only later I learned that it is taken from OF compatible
property after removing vendor prefix with comma.
Afterwards I decide to abide by this change since it seems to be
just an improvement - if I'm adding the string definition anyway,
then why not replace other matching literals?
I will add the explanation if the commit message if there are no
other objections.
>> { }
>> };
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, lm3692x_id);
>>
>
>
--
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski
