On 2021-11-12 12:12:38, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 01:26:58AM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > The length of qcom,enabled-strings as property array is enough to
> > determine the number of strings to be enabled, without needing to set
> > qcom,num-strings to override the default number of strings when less
> > than the default (which is also the maxium) is provided in DT.
> >
> > Fixes: 775d2ffb4af6 ("backlight: qcom-wled: Restructure the driver for WLED3")
> > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c b/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c
> > index c5232478a343..9bfbf601762a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c
> > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c
> > @@ -1518,6 +1518,8 @@ static int wled_configure(struct wled *wled)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > }
> > +
> > + cfg->num_strings = string_len;
>
> I still don't really understand why this wants to be a separate patch.
I'm viewing this as a separate issue, and this makes it easier to
document the change in a loose commit.
> The warning text emitted by the previous patch (whatever text we agree
> on) will be nonsense until this patch is applied.
>
> If this patch cannot appear before the warning is introduces then there
> is no correct order for patches 4 and 5 (which implies they should be the
> same patch).
Agreed, this is a weird way of doing things in v2 - the error message is
printed yet the length of qcom,enabled-strings is always ignored before
this patch.
If we were to reorder patch 5 before patch 4 that should also
temporarily move `cfg->num_strings = cfg->num_strings + 1;` right below
this `if` so that `qcom,num-strings` remains the definitive way to
set/override length. That's doable, and makes it easier to read patch 4
as that bit of code will be replaced by of_property_read_u32 on that
exact line. Let me know which method you prefer.
- Marijn
