On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 13:24 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 1:34 AM Sander Vanheule <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Both single and bi-color scanning modes are supported. The driver will > > verify that the addresses are valid for the current mode, before > > registering the LEDs. LEDs can be turned on, off, or toggled at one of > > six predefined rates from 40ms to 1280ms. > > > > Implements a platform device for use as a child device with RTL8231 MFD, > > and uses the parent regmap to access the required registers. > > ... > > > + This options enables support for using the LED scanning matrix > > output > > option Fixed. > > > + of the RTL8231 GPIO and LED expander chip. > > + When built as a module, this module will be named leds-rtl8231. > > ... > > > + interval_ms = 500; > > Does this deserve a #define? Fine by me. Doesn't make a difference for the binary anyway, but it helps document the code a bit. > ... > > > + ret = fwnode_property_count_u32(fwnode, "reg"); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + return ret; > > + if (ret != 2) > > + return -ENODEV; > > I would say -EINVAL, but -ENODEV is similarly okay. Any specific reason you think EINVAL is more appropriate than ENODEV? > ... > > > + int err; > > ret or err? Be consistent across a single driver. I had first used 'err' for both fwnode_property_count_u32() and fwnode_property_read_u32_array(). The former returns "actual count or error code", while the latter is only "error code". And I found it weird to read the code as "does error code equal 2", if I used 'err' as variable name. I've split this up: * addr_count for fwnode_property_count_u32's result * err for fwnode_property_read_u32_array's result Since addr_count is only used before err is touched, I guess the compiler will optimize this out anyway? Best, Sander
