Jacek
On 10/22/19 12:41 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
Dan,
On 10/22/19 6:37 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
Jacek
On 10/18/19 4:56 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 10/18/19 11:48 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
Dan,
+ ret = lp5xx_parse_channel_child(child, cfg, i);
I went into details of this parsing and finally came up with
the code which is a bit greater in size, but IMHO cleaner.
Note changes in variable naming. It is not even compile-tested.
static int lp55xx_parse_common_child(struct device_node *np,
struct lp55xx_led_config *cfg,
int led_number, int *chan_nr)
{
int ret;
of_property_read_string(np, "chan-name",
&cfg[led_number].name);
of_property_read_u8(np, "led-cur",
&cfg[led_number].led_current);
of_property_read_u8(np, "max-cur",
&cfg[led_number].max_current);
ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "reg", chan_nr);
if (ret)
return ret;
if (chan_nr < 0 || chan_nr > cfg->max_chan_nr) /* side note:
new
max_chan_nr property needed in cfg */
return -EINVAL;
return 0;
}
static int lp55xx_parse_mutli_led_child(struct device_node *np,
struct lp55xx_led_config *cfg,
int child_number,
int color_number)
{
int chan_nr, color_id;
ret = lp55xx_parse_common_child(child, cfg, child_number,
color_number,
&chan_nr);
if (ret)
return ret;
ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "color", &color_id);
if (ret)
return ret;
cfg[child_number].color_components[color_number].color_id =
color_id;
cfg[child_number].color_components[color_number].output_num =
chan_nr;
set_bit(color_id, &cfg[child_number].available_colors);
return 0;
}
staitc int lp55xx_parse_mutli_led(struct device_node *np,
struct lp55xx_led_config *cfg,
int child_number)
{
struct device_node *child;
int num_colors = 0, i = 0;
s/, i = 0//
for_each_child_of_node(np, child) {
ret = lp55xx_parse_mutli_led_child(child, cfg,
num_colors,
child_number, i))
Replace above call with below:
ret = lp55xx_parse_mutli_led_child(child, cfg, child_number, num_colors);
I applied your DT parser patch from the v13 series. Which eliminates
this comment correct?
Yes, it contains this fix.
OK I added your patch and it broke a lot of the DT parsing for the LP55xx.
I would prefer to stick with the original code without having to
re-write this again.
Dan
