Am Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:19:15 +0100
schrieb Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>:
> > > + struct led_classdev cdev;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static struct simatic_ipc_led simatic_ipc_leds_io[] = {
> > > + {1 << 15, "simatic-ipc:green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1" },
> > > + {1 << 7, "simatic-ipc:yellow:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1"
> > > },
> > > + {1 << 14, "simatic-ipc:red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2" },
> > > + {1 << 6, "simatic-ipc:yellow:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2"
> > > },
> > > + {1 << 13, "simatic-ipc:red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3" },
> > > + {1 << 5, "simatic-ipc:yellow:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3"
> > > },
> >
> > Can you use BIT() macro here? And can it be sorted by the bit
> > order?
>
> There's nothing wrong with << and this order is fine.
>
> But I still don't like the naming. simantic-ipc: prefix is
> useless. Having 6 status leds is not good, either.
With some of my questions still not being answered i will probably
remove that prefix entirely, not even use "platform:".
And i might stick with 6x "status". Since that allows reflecting the
labels on the machines, while using "above functions if you can"
regards,
Henning
> > > + struct simatic_ipc_led *led =
> > > + container_of(led_cd, struct simatic_ipc_led,
> > > cdev);
> >
> > One line?
>
> 80 columns. It is fine as it is.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pavel
