On Sun, 18 Jun 2023, André Apitzsch wrote:
> This commit adds support for Kinetic KTD2026/7 RGB/White LED driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: André Apitzsch <git@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig | 12 +
> drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/leds/rgb/leds-ktd202x.c | 610 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 623 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig b/drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig
> index 360c8679c6e2..fa422e7a3f74 100644
> --- a/drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig
> @@ -2,6 +2,18 @@
>
> if LEDS_CLASS_MULTICOLOR
>
> +config LEDS_KTD202X
> + tristate "LED support for KTD202x Chips"
> + depends on I2C
> + depends on OF
> + select REGMAP_I2C
> + help
> + This option enables support for LEDs connected to the KTD202x
> + chip.
More info please.
Who makes it? Where can it be found? What is it? What does it do?
> + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> + will be called leds-ktd202x.
> +
> config LEDS_PWM_MULTICOLOR
> tristate "PWM driven multi-color LED Support"
> depends on PWM
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile b/drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile
> index 8c01daf63f61..5b4f22e077c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
> +obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_KTD202X) += leds-ktd202x.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_PWM_MULTICOLOR) += leds-pwm-multicolor.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_QCOM_LPG) += leds-qcom-lpg.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_MT6370_RGB) += leds-mt6370-rgb.o
> diff --git a/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-ktd202x.c b/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-ktd202x.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..4f0cc558c797
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-ktd202x.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,610 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +// Driver for Kinetic KTD2026/7 RGB/White LED driver
No C++ comments beyond the SPDX please.
Copyright? Author? Date? Description.
> +#include <linux/i2c.h>
> +#include <linux/led-class-multicolor.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> +
> +#define KTD202X_MAX_LEDS 4
> +
> +#define KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL 0x00
> +#define KTD202X_REG_FLASH_PERIOD 0x01
> +#define KTD202X_REG_PWM1_TIMER 0x02
> +#define KTD202X_REG_PWM2_TIMER 0x03
> +#define KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL 0x04
> +#define KTD202X_REG_TRISE_FALL 0x05
> +#define KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(x) (0x06 + (x))
> +
> +#define KTD202X_RSTR_RESET 0x07
> +
> +#define KTD202X_ENABLE_CTRL_WAKE 0x00 /* SCL & SDA High */
> +#define KTD202X_ENABLE_CTRL_SLEEP 0x08 /* SCL=High & SDA Toggling */
The formatting between the 2 comments above is making my OCD twitch.
> +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(x) (BIT(2 * (x)) | BIT(2 * (x) + 1))
> +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_OFF 0
> +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_ON(x) BIT(2 * (x))
> +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_PWM1(x) BIT(2 * (x) + 1)
> +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_PWM2(x) (BIT(2 * (x)) | BIT(2 * (x) + 1))
> +
> +#define KTD202X_TIME_MIN 256 /* ms */
Put MS in the name, then omit the comment.
> +#define KTD202X_TIME_STEP 128 /* ms */
> +#define KTD202X_ON_MAX 256
> +
> +static const struct reg_default ktd202x_reg_defaults[] = {
> + { KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL, 0x00 },
> + { KTD202X_REG_FLASH_PERIOD, 0x00 },
> + { KTD202X_REG_PWM1_TIMER, 0x01 },
> + { KTD202X_REG_PWM2_TIMER, 0x01 },
> + { KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL, 0x00 },
> + { KTD202X_REG_TRISE_FALL, 0x00 },
> + { KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(0), 0x4f },
> + { KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(1), 0x4f },
> + { KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(2), 0x4f },
> + { KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(3), 0x4f },
What do these magic numbers mean?
Better to define them I think.
> +};
> +
> +struct ktd202x;
No forward declarations, please reorder your structs.
> +struct ktd202x_led {
> + struct ktd202x *chip;
> + union {
> + struct led_classdev cdev;
> + struct led_classdev_mc mcdev;
> + };
> + u32 index;
> +};
> +
> +struct ktd202x {
> + struct mutex mutex; /* held when writing to registers */
This comment is superfluous.
> + struct regulator *vin_regulator;
> + struct device *dev;
> + struct regmap *regmap;
> + bool enabled;
> + int num_leds;
> + struct ktd202x_led leds[KTD202X_MAX_LEDS];
Please restructure so you do not have interwoven deps.
This should not be a thing:
ktd202x->ktd202x_led->ktd202x->ktd202x_led
> +};
> +
> +struct ktd202x_info {
> + unsigned int num_leds;
> +};
Do you need a whole struct for one value?
> +static const struct ktd202x_info ktd2026 = {
> + .num_leds = 3,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct ktd202x_info ktd2027 = {
> + .num_leds = 4,
> +};
> +
> +static int ktd202x_chip_init(struct ktd202x *chip)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = regmap_write(chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL,
> + KTD202X_ENABLE_CTRL_WAKE);
Why does this have to be its own function?
Can't we just put this call inside _chip_enable()?
> +
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to enable the chip: %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void ktd202x_chip_disable(struct ktd202x *chip)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!chip->enabled)
> + return;
> +
> + regmap_write(chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL,
> + KTD202X_ENABLE_CTRL_SLEEP);
> +
> + ret = regulator_disable(chip->vin_regulator);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to disable regulator: %d\n", ret);
I would avoid printing out errors that have no affect or meaning.
Since you are not returning an error, perhaps just make this a warn.
Better yet, return the error?
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + chip->enabled = false;
> +}
> +
> +static int ktd202x_chip_enable(struct ktd202x *chip)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (chip->enabled)
> + return 0;
> +
> + ret = regulator_enable(chip->vin_regulator);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to enable regulator: %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + chip->enabled = true;
Does this require locks?
> + ret = ktd202x_chip_init(chip);
> + if (ret)
> + ktd202x_chip_disable(chip);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static bool ktd202x_chip_in_use(struct ktd202x *chip)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + if (chip->num_leds == 1) {
Why are we treating one LED differently to >=2?
> + if (chip->leds[0].mcdev.led_cdev.brightness)
> + return true;
> + } else {
> + for (i = 0; i < chip->num_leds; i++)
> + if (chip->leds[i].cdev.brightness)
> + return true;
> + }
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +static void ktd202x_brightness_set(struct ktd202x_led *led, struct led_classdev *cdev,
> + struct mc_subled *subleds, unsigned int num_colors)
Why have channels suddenly been converted to colours?
> +{
> + enum led_brightness brightness;
> + int idx;
> + int ret;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (ktd202x_chip_in_use(led->chip)) {
> + ret = ktd202x_chip_enable(led->chip);
Why are we ignoring return values?
> + if (ret)
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < num_colors; i++) {
> + idx = subleds[i].channel;
> + brightness = subleds[i].brightness;
> +
> + ret = regmap_write(led->chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(idx),
> + brightness ? brightness-1 : 0);
> + if (ret)
> + return;
> +
> + if (brightness) {
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(led->chip->regmap,
> + KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL,
> + KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(idx),
> + KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_ON(idx));
> + } else {
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(led->chip->regmap,
> + KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL,
> + KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(idx),
> + KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_OFF);
> + }
> + if (ret)
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (!ktd202x_chip_in_use(led->chip))
> + ktd202x_chip_disable(led->chip);
> +}
> +
> +static int ktd202x_brightness_single_set(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> + enum led_brightness value)
> +{
> + struct ktd202x_led *led = container_of(cdev, struct ktd202x_led, cdev);
> + struct mc_subled info;
> + int num_channels = 1;
Why do you need a variable for this?
> + mutex_lock(&led->chip->mutex);
> +
> + info.brightness = value;
> + info.channel = led->index;
> + ktd202x_brightness_set(led, cdev, &info, num_channels);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&led->chip->mutex);
> +
> + return 0;
This could be a lie, right? Why not aggregate the received error values?
> +}
> +
> +static int ktd202x_brightness_mc_set(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> + enum led_brightness value)
> +{
> + struct led_classdev_mc *mc = lcdev_to_mccdev(cdev);
> + struct ktd202x_led *led = container_of(mc, struct ktd202x_led, mcdev);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&led->chip->mutex);
> +
> + led_mc_calc_color_components(mc, value);
> + ktd202x_brightness_set(led, cdev, mc->subled_info, mc->num_colors);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&led->chip->mutex);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int ktd202x_blink_set(struct ktd202x_led *led, struct led_classdev *cdev,
> + unsigned long *delay_on, unsigned long *delay_off,
> + u8 ctrl_mask, u8 ctrl_on, u8 ctrl_pwm1)
> +{
> + unsigned long delay_total; /* ms */
Change the variable name.
> + int ret, num_steps, on;
> +
> + /* Never off - brightness is already set, disable blinking */
> + if (!*delay_off) {
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(led->chip->regmap,
> + KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL,
> + ctrl_mask,
> + ctrl_on);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + /* Convert into values the HW will understand. */
> + num_steps = (*delay_on + *delay_off - KTD202X_TIME_MIN) /
> + KTD202X_TIME_STEP + 1;
> + num_steps = min(126, num_steps);
Please define this magic number.
> + on = (*delay_on * KTD202X_ON_MAX) / (*delay_on + *delay_off);
> +
> + delay_total = num_steps * KTD202X_TIME_STEP + KTD202X_TIME_MIN;
> + *delay_on = (delay_total * on) / KTD202X_ON_MAX;
> + *delay_off = delay_total - *delay_on;
Care to add a few comments to save the reader a few moments?
> + /* Set timings */
> + ret = regmap_write(led->chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_FLASH_PERIOD,
> + num_steps);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
'\n' here.
> + ret = regmap_write(led->chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_PWM1_TIMER, on);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(led->chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL,
> + ctrl_mask,
> + ctrl_pwm1);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int ktd202x_blink_single_set(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> + unsigned long *delay_on,
> + unsigned long *delay_off)
> +{
> + struct ktd202x_led *led = container_of(cdev, struct ktd202x_led, cdev);
> + struct led_classdev *lcdev;
What's the difference between lcdev and cdev?
If nothing, please keep the nomenclature consistent throughout.
> + int index, ret;
> + u8 ctrl_mask;
> + u8 ctrl_on;
> + u8 ctrl_pwm1;
> +
> + lcdev = &led->cdev;
Why can't this be part of the declaration above?
> + /* If no blink specified, default to 1 Hz. */
> + if (!*delay_off && !*delay_on) {
> + *delay_off = 500;
> + *delay_on = 500;
> + }
> +
> + if (!lcdev->brightness) {
> + lcdev->brightness = LED_FULL;
LED_FULL is supposed to be deprecated:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/leds.h#L32
> + ret = ktd202x_brightness_single_set(lcdev, lcdev->brightness);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + /* Never on - just set to off */
> + if (!*delay_on) {
> + lcdev->brightness = LED_OFF;
Instead of setting this before the call here and above, can you do it
centrally inside the call?
> + return ktd202x_brightness_single_set(lcdev, LED_OFF);
> + }
> +
> + index = led->index;
> + ctrl_mask = KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(index);
> + ctrl_on = KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_ON(index);
> + ctrl_pwm1 = KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_PWM1(index);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&led->chip->mutex);
Maybe lock inside the call, save some lines here and below?
> + ret = ktd202x_blink_set(led, lcdev, delay_on, delay_off, ctrl_mask,
> + ctrl_on, ctrl_pwm1);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&led->chip->mutex);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int ktd202x_blink_mc_set(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> + unsigned long *delay_on,
> + unsigned long *delay_off)
> +{
> + struct led_classdev_mc *mc = lcdev_to_mccdev(cdev);
> + struct ktd202x_led *led = container_of(mc, struct ktd202x_led, mcdev);
> + struct led_classdev *lcdev;
> + u8 ctrl_mask = 0;
> + u8 ctrl_on = 0;
> + u8 ctrl_pwm1 = 0;
> + int ret, i;
> +
> + lcdev = &led->mcdev.led_cdev;
> +
> + /* If no blink specified, default to 1 Hz. */
> + if (!*delay_off && !*delay_on) {
> + *delay_off = 500;
> + *delay_on = 500;
> + }
Can this be moved down below the 2 early returns below?
> + if (!lcdev->brightness) {
> + lcdev->brightness = LED_FULL;
> + ret = ktd202x_brightness_mc_set(lcdev, lcdev->brightness);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + /* Never on - just set to off */
> + if (!*delay_on) {
> + lcdev->brightness = LED_OFF;
> + return ktd202x_brightness_mc_set(lcdev, LED_OFF);
> + }
I see a lot of hoop jumping and code repetition between single and
multi-color. Is there no way to treat the multi-color case as multiple
single colours?
> + for (i = 0; i < mc->num_colors; i++) {
> + int index = mc->subled_info[i].channel;
> +
> + ctrl_mask |= KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(index);
> + ctrl_on |= KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_ON(index);
> + ctrl_pwm1 |= KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_PWM1(index);
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&led->chip->mutex);
> +
> + ret = ktd202x_blink_set(led, lcdev, delay_on, delay_off, ctrl_mask,
> + ctrl_on, ctrl_pwm1);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&led->chip->mutex);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int ktd202x_add_led(struct ktd202x *chip, struct device_node *np,
> + unsigned int index)
> +{
> + struct led_init_data init_data = {};
> + struct led_classdev *cdev;
> + struct device_node *child;
> + struct mc_subled *info;
> + struct ktd202x_led *led = &chip->leds[index];
> + int num_channels;
> + u32 color = 0;
> + u32 reg;
> + int ret;
> + int i;
> +
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "color", &color);
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
This is unusual. Why are we allowing -EINVAL?
Does this make it optional?
If that's the case, perhaps a comment?
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to parse \"color\" of %pOF\n", np);
That's pretty ugly. Can you use single quotes instead?
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (color == LED_COLOR_ID_RGB) {
> + num_channels = of_get_available_child_count(np);
> + if (!num_channels || num_channels > chip->num_leds)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + } else {
> + num_channels = 1;
> + }
> +
> + led->chip = chip;
> +
> + if (color == LED_COLOR_ID_RGB) {
> + info = devm_kcalloc(chip->dev, num_channels, sizeof(*info),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!info)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + i = 0;
> + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> + u32 color = 0;
Not sure I've seen anyone overload a variable in the kernel before.
LED_COLOR_ID_WHITE
Is that correct? No colour means that it's white?
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", ®);
> + if (ret != 0 || reg >= chip->num_leds) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "invalid \"reg\" of %pOFn\n",
> + np);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "color", &color);
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev,
> + "failed to parse \"color\" of %pOF\n",
> + np);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + info[i].color_index = color;
> + info[i].channel = reg;
> + info[i].intensity = 0;
> + i++;
> + }
> +
> + led->mcdev.subled_info = info;
> + led->mcdev.num_colors = num_channels;
> +
> + cdev = &led->mcdev.led_cdev;
> + cdev->brightness_set_blocking = ktd202x_brightness_mc_set;
> + cdev->blink_set = ktd202x_blink_mc_set;
> + } else {
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "reg", ®);
> + if (ret != 0 || reg >= chip->num_leds) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "invalid \"reg\" of %pOFn\n", np);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + led->index = reg;
> +
> + cdev = &led->cdev;
> + cdev->brightness_set_blocking = ktd202x_brightness_single_set;
> + cdev->blink_set = ktd202x_blink_single_set;
> + }
> +
> + cdev->max_brightness = 192;
Define please.
> + init_data.fwnode = of_fwnode_handle(np);
> +
> + if (color == LED_COLOR_ID_RGB)
> + ret = devm_led_classdev_multicolor_register_ext(chip->dev,
> + &led->mcdev,
> + &init_data);
> + else
> + ret = devm_led_classdev_register_ext(chip->dev, &led->cdev,
> + &init_data);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(chip->dev, "unable to register %s\n", cdev->name);
> + of_node_put(np);
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int ktd202x_probe_dt(struct ktd202x *chip)
> +{
> + struct device_node *np = dev_of_node(chip->dev), *child;
> + const struct ktd202x_info *ktd202x;
> + unsigned int i;
> + int count, ret;
> +
> + ktd202x = of_device_get_match_data(chip->dev);
> + if (!ktd202x)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + chip->num_leds = ktd202x->num_leds;
> +
> + count = of_get_available_child_count(np);
> + if (!count || count > ktd202x->num_leds)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + regmap_write(chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL,
> + KTD202X_RSTR_RESET);
'\n'
> + /* allow the device to execute the complete reset */
"Allow"
> + usleep_range(200, 300);
> +
> + i = 0;
> + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> + ret = ktd202x_add_led(chip, child, i);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + i++;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct regmap_config ktd202x_regmap_config = {
> + .reg_bits = 8,
> + .val_bits = 8,
> + .max_register = 0x09,
> + .cache_type = REGCACHE_FLAT,
> + .reg_defaults = ktd202x_reg_defaults,
> + .num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(ktd202x_reg_defaults),
> +};
> +
> +static int ktd202x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> +{
> + struct ktd202x *chip;
> + int ret;
> +
> + chip = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!chip)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + mutex_init(&chip->mutex);
> + mutex_lock(&chip->mutex);
Locking during the whole of probe is unusual.
Are you sure this is required?
> + chip->dev = &client->dev;
> + i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
> +
> + chip->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(client, &ktd202x_regmap_config);
> + if (IS_ERR(chip->regmap)) {
> + ret = dev_err_probe(&client->dev, PTR_ERR(chip->regmap),
> + "Failed to allocate register map.\n");
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + chip->vin_regulator = devm_regulator_get(&client->dev, "vin");
> + ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(chip->vin_regulator);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret,
> + "Failed to request regulator.\n");
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_enable(chip->vin_regulator);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret,
> + "Failed to enable regulator.\n");
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + ret = ktd202x_probe_dt(chip);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto error_reg;
> +
> + ret = regulator_disable(chip->vin_regulator);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret,
> + "Failed to disable regulator.\n");
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +error_reg:
> + regulator_disable(chip->vin_regulator);
> +
> +error:
> + mutex_destroy(&chip->mutex);
No need to unlock first?
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void ktd202x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> +{
> + struct ktd202x *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> +
> + ktd202x_chip_disable(chip);
> +
> + mutex_destroy(&chip->mutex);
> +}
> +
> +static void ktd202x_shutdown(struct i2c_client *client)
> +{
> + struct ktd202x *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> +
> + /* Reset registers to make sure all off before shutdown */
> + regmap_write(chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL,
> + KTD202X_RSTR_RESET);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id ktd202x_match_table[] = {
> + { .compatible = "kinetic,ktd2026", .data = &ktd2026 },
.data = KTD2026_NUM_LEDS;
> + { .compatible = "kinetic,ktd2027", .data = &ktd2027 },
> + { /* sentinel */ },
Please remove this comment. We know how NULL entries work.
> +};
> +
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ktd202x_match_table);
> +
> +static struct i2c_driver ktd202x_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "leds-ktd202x",
> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(ktd202x_match_table),
Last I heard we were removing these of_match_ptr()s?
Might be old info though. Someone else should confirm.
> + },
> + .probe_new = ktd202x_probe,
> + .remove = ktd202x_remove,
> + .shutdown = ktd202x_shutdown,
> +};
> +
Remove this line.
> +module_i2c_driver(ktd202x_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("André Apitzsch <git@xxxxxxxxxxx>");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Kinetic KTD2026/7 LED driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
> --
> 2.41.0
>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
