On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> 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.
Personally I would just squash them together. There are no redundant
values in the DT that could be fixed until we can use the string_len
to set num_strings.
However I won't object to the other approach providing the result is
bisectable.
Daniel.
