On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800 Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field. > > Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic > > update. > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Patch generated with the following coccinelle script: > > > > --->8--- > > virtual patch > > > > @@ > > struct pwm_device *p; > > expression e; > > @@ > > ( > > -(p)->polarity = e; > > +pwm_set_polarity((p), e); > > | > > -(p)->polarity > > +pwm_get_polarity((p)) > > s/((p))/(p)/ > > > | > > -(p)->period = e; > > +pwm_set_period((p), e); > > | > > -(p)->period > > +pwm_get_period((p)) > > s/((p))/(p)/ > > > | > > -(p)->duty_cycle = e; > > +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e); > > The (p) seems unnecessary here. I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around p, right? -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
