On 2021-11-12 13:23:36, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> 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.
Reordering this patch before patch 4 in the way described above should
allow just that, except that no warnings will be given for ambiguity
until patch 4 is applied after that - which is weird given that that
patch only intends the off-by-one error. Perhaps we should keep the
order as it is, but add the ambiguity warning in this patch instead.
That means we have one patch to fix the off-by-one first, and another
that allows qcom,num-strings to provide a default for num_strings. I
guess that's better to keep separated?
- Marijn
