Hi Uwe, On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:54:07PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > .pwm_period_ns is an unsigned integer. So when led->pwm_period_ns > 0 > is false, we now assign 0 to a value that is already 0, so it doesn't > hurt and we can skip checking the actual value. > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c > index 8b6965a563e9..b72fd89ff390 100644 > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int led_pwm_add(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv, > pwm_get_args(led_data->pwm, &pargs); > > led_data->period = pargs.period; > - if (!led_data->period && (led->pwm_period_ns > 0)) > + if (!led_data->period) > led_data->period = led->pwm_period_ns; > > ret = devm_led_classdev_register(dev, &led_data->cdev); > -- > 2.24.0 > Having tested this series with the pwm-iqs620a driver in development (v5) and some actual hardware (IQS620AEV04 connected to an n-channel MOSFET and an LED), let me add: Tested-by: Jeff LaBundy <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxx> Kind regards, Jeff LaBundy
