+-----Original Message----- +From: Jacek Anaszewski [mailto:j.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxx] +Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:00 PM +To: Phong Vo +Cc: Mika Westerberg; Rafael J. Wysocki; Richard Purdie; linux- +leds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- +acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Loc Ho; Thang Nguyen; patches; Tin Huynh +Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x + +Hi Phong, + +On 11/30/2016 09:23 AM, Phong Vo wrote: +> +-----Original Message----- +> +From: Jacek Anaszewski [mailto:j.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxx] +> +Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 3:18 PM +> +To: Tin Huynh +> +Cc: Mika Westerberg; Rafael J. Wysocki; Richard Purdie; linux- +> +leds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- +> +acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Loc Ho; Thang Nguyen; Phong Vo; patches +> +Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] leds: pca955x: Add ACPI support for pca955x +> + +> +On 11/30/2016 09:06 AM, Tin Huynh wrote: +> +> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Jacek Anaszewski +> +> <j.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: +> +>> +> +>> On 11/30/2016 08:51 AM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: +> +>>> +> +>>> Hi Tin, +> +>>> +> +>>> How this patch is different from the one already merged? +> +>>> +> +>>> Best regards, +> +>>> Jacek Anaszewski +> +>>> +> +> Hi Jacek, I am answering on behalf of Tin. +> This patch is for the leds:pca955x driver while the previous one was +> for leds:pca963x driver! +> They are almost the same in the coding construct, but different +drivers. + +Ah, indeed, that's why I got lost with patch version numbering :-) + +> +>>> On 11/30/2016 04:08 AM, Tin Huynh wrote: +> +>>>> +> +>>>> This patch enables ACPI support for leds-pca955x driver. +> +>>>> +> +>>>> Signed-off-by: Tin Huynh <tnhuynh@xxxxxxx> +> +>>>> --- +> +>>>> drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- +> +>>>> 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) +> +>>>> +> +>>>> Change from V2: +> +>>>> -Correct coding conventions. +> +>>>> +> +>>>> Change from V1: +> +>>>> -Remove CONFIG_ACPI. +> +>>>> +> +>>>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c +> +>>>> b/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c index 840401a..b168ebe 100644 +> +>>>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c +> +>>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c +> +>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ +> +>>>> * bits the chip supports. +> +>>>> */ +> +>>>> +> +>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h> +> +>>>> #include <linux/module.h> +> +>>>> #include <linux/delay.h> +> +>>>> #include <linux/string.h> +> +>>>> @@ -100,6 +101,15 @@ struct pca955x_chipdef { }; +> +>>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, pca955x_id); +> +>>>> +> +>>>> +static const struct acpi_device_id pca955x_acpi_ids[] = { +> +>>>> + { .id = "PCA9550", .driver_data = pca9550 }, +> +>>>> + { .id = "PCA9551", .driver_data = pca9551 }, +> +>>>> + { .id = "PCA9552", .driver_data = pca9552 }, +> +>>>> + { .id = "PCA9553", .driver_data = pca9553 }, +> +>>>> + { } +> +>> +> +>> +> +>> OK, I see that you brought back explicit properties in the +> +>> structure initializer. Is there some vital reason for that? +> +> It's not vital, but to make it consistent with what was done for +> pca963x, + +For pca963x I applied the version without explicit properties. +Note that this is consistent with pca963x_id array above the added +pca963x_acpi_ids. For pca955x the situation is the same. + +> and also per suggestion by Mika on reviewing a different driver +> mux:954x in another thread. + +Could you give a reference to that thread? In the review of V1 of this +patch Mika mentioned "{ "PCA9553", pca9553 }" scheme. + Actually it was Peter Rosin (not Mika) on linux-i2c and the reference to that is follows https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/18/732 I am including Robin here. Thanks. +> I would think this would make the definition clearer. +> +> +>> You're mentioning "correcting coding conventions" in the patch +> +>> changelog. checkpatch.pl --strict doesn't complain about that, so +> +>> what coding conventions you have on mind? +> +> +> +> +> +>> +> +>> +> +>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, pca955x_acpi_ids); +> +>>>> + +> +>>>> struct pca955x { +> +>>>> struct mutex lock; +> +>>>> struct pca955x_led *leds; +> +>>>> @@ -250,7 +260,16 @@ static int pca955x_probe(struct i2c_client +> +*client, +> +>>>> struct led_platform_data *pdata; +> +>>>> int i, err; +> +>>>> +> +>>>> - chip = &pca955x_chipdefs[id->driver_data]; +> +>>>> + if (id) { +> +>>>> + chip = &pca955x_chipdefs[id->driver_data]; +> +>>>> + } else { +> +>>>> + const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id; +> +> +> +> I added '{}' follow if +> + +> +You had it already in V1. Please verify if the patch applied to the +> +for- next branch of linux-leds.git has the shape you intended: +> + +> +https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/j.anaszewski/linux- +> +leds.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=e46895b71a26da404c4d95cb2bab1a67cf8b20 +> +bc +> + +> +-- +> +Best regards, +> +Jacek Anaszewski +> -- +> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" +> in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo +> info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html +> +> +> + + +-- +Best regards, +Jacek Anaszewski -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
