On 12.08.17 22:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> Hmm. Well, this works if you can't provide better names. Still "board"
>>> is somehow generic, andsomeone else might want to use it. "board" ->
>>> "crms"?
>>
>> It's specified in device tree by defining label.
>> In my examples:
>> board@0 {
>> compatible = "ccs,cr0014114";
>> reg = <0>;
>> spi-max-frequency = <50000>;
>> spi-cpha;
>> label = "board0";
>> };
>>
>> board@1 {
>> compatible = "ccs,cr0014114";
>> reg = <1>;
>> spi-max-frequency = <50000>;
>> spi-cpha;
>> label = "board1";
>> };
>
> Ok, makes sense. How does the board look?
Did you mean a photo? Sure http://i.imgur.com/OShLIJx.jpg
>>>>>>>> + while (i--)
>>>>>>>> + led_classdev_unregister(&priv->leds[i].ldev);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can devm_* be used to simplify this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think no, because it will cause race condition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please take a look at devm_led_classdev_register() and friends. It
>>>>> should be possible to simplify code without races.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how I can call destroy_workqueue() after calling unregister leds.
>>>
>>> Do you actually need the workqueues? It should be possible to avoid
>>> them, using workqueue support in the core.
>>
>> The delay between data sends to SPI board should be at least 10 ms
>> I think it will be bad idea to use shared workqueue from kernel,
>> so I create separate single threaded work queue :)
>
> If workqueue support in led core can not take 10 msec wait, we should
> fix it, not add hacks around...
>
>
Could you please explain or give a example?
Because it's not clear for me, how I can use it.
--
Best regards,
Oleh Kravchenko
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
