Hi Lee Jones,
thanks for your feedback and sorry for the late response.
I'll try to address everything in the next version. But some things
need clarification, see questions and comments below.
Am Donnerstag, dem 22.06.2023 um 19:10 +0100 schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2023, André Apitzsch wrote:
>
> > This commit adds support for Kinetic KTD2026/7 RGB/White LED
> > driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: André Apitzsch <git@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig | 12 +
> > drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/leds/rgb/leds-ktd202x.c | 610
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 623 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig b/drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig
> > index 360c8679c6e2..fa422e7a3f74 100644
> > --- a/drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/leds/rgb/Kconfig
> > @@ -2,6 +2,18 @@
> >
> > if LEDS_CLASS_MULTICOLOR
> >
> > +config LEDS_KTD202X
> > + tristate "LED support for KTD202x Chips"
> > + depends on I2C
> > + depends on OF
> > + select REGMAP_I2C
> > + help
> > + This option enables support for LEDs connected to the
> > KTD202x
> > + chip.
>
> More info please.
>
> Who makes it? Where can it be found? What is it? What does it do?
>
> > + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
> > module
> > + will be called leds-ktd202x.
> > +
> > config LEDS_PWM_MULTICOLOR
> > tristate "PWM driven multi-color LED Support"
> > depends on PWM
> > diff --git a/drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile b/drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile
> > index 8c01daf63f61..5b4f22e077c0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/leds/rgb/Makefile
> > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_KTD202X) += leds-ktd202x.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_PWM_MULTICOLOR) += leds-pwm-multicolor.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_QCOM_LPG) += leds-qcom-lpg.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_LEDS_MT6370_RGB) += leds-mt6370-rgb.o
> > diff --git a/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-ktd202x.c
> > b/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-ktd202x.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..4f0cc558c797
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-ktd202x.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,610 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> > +// Driver for Kinetic KTD2026/7 RGB/White LED driver
>
> No C++ comments beyond the SPDX please.
>
> Copyright? Author? Date? Description.
>
> > +#include <linux/i2c.h>
> > +#include <linux/led-class-multicolor.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> > +#include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > +
> > +#define KTD202X_MAX_LEDS 4
> > +
> > +#define KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL 0x00
> > +#define KTD202X_REG_FLASH_PERIOD 0x01
> > +#define KTD202X_REG_PWM1_TIMER 0x02
> > +#define KTD202X_REG_PWM2_TIMER 0x03
> > +#define KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL 0x04
> > +#define KTD202X_REG_TRISE_FALL 0x05
> > +#define KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(x) (0x06 + (x))
> > +
> > +#define KTD202X_RSTR_RESET 0x07
> > +
> > +#define KTD202X_ENABLE_CTRL_WAKE 0x00 /* SCL & SDA High */
> > +#define KTD202X_ENABLE_CTRL_SLEEP 0x08 /* SCL=High & SDA Toggling
> > */
>
> The formatting between the 2 comments above is making my OCD twitch.
Should I change anything here?
>
> > +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(x) (BIT(2 * (x)) | BIT(2 * (x) +
> > 1))
> > +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_OFF 0
> > +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_ON(x) BIT(2 * (x))
> > +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_PWM1(x) BIT(2 * (x) + 1)
> > +#define KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_PWM2(x) (BIT(2 * (x)) | BIT(2 * (x) +
> > 1))
> > +
> > +#define KTD202X_TIME_MIN 256 /* ms */
>
> Put MS in the name, then omit the comment.
>
> > +#define KTD202X_TIME_STEP 128 /* ms */
> > +#define KTD202X_ON_MAX 256
> > +
> > +static const struct reg_default ktd202x_reg_defaults[] = {
> > + { KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL, 0x00 },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_FLASH_PERIOD, 0x00 },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_PWM1_TIMER, 0x01 },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_PWM2_TIMER, 0x01 },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL, 0x00 },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_TRISE_FALL, 0x00 },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(0), 0x4f },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(1), 0x4f },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(2), 0x4f },
> > + { KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(3), 0x4f },
>
> What do these magic numbers mean?
The default value (0x00) for KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL seems difficult
to describe in a variable name, as it changes multiple parts (Timer
Slot Control, Enable Control and Rise/Fall Time Scaling;
see https://www.kinet-ic.com/uploads/KTD2026-7-04h.pdf page 13)
>
> Better to define them I think.
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct ktd202x;
>
> No forward declarations, please reorder your structs.
>
> > +struct ktd202x_led {
> > + struct ktd202x *chip;
> > + union {
> > + struct led_classdev cdev;
> > + struct led_classdev_mc mcdev;
> > + };
> > + u32 index;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct ktd202x {
> > + struct mutex mutex; /* held when writing to registers */
>
> This comment is superfluous.
>
> > + struct regulator *vin_regulator;
> > + struct device *dev;
> > + struct regmap *regmap;
> > + bool enabled;
> > + int num_leds;
> > + struct ktd202x_led leds[KTD202X_MAX_LEDS];
>
> Please restructure so you do not have interwoven deps.
>
> This should not be a thing:
>
> ktd202x->ktd202x_led->ktd202x->ktd202x_led
Not sure if this is easily possible. All led drivers seem to make use
of this structure, even the recently added aw200xx. Could you point at
a led driver that avoids this.
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct ktd202x_info {
> > + unsigned int num_leds;
> > +};
>
> Do you need a whole struct for one value?
>
> > +static const struct ktd202x_info ktd2026 = {
> > + .num_leds = 3,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct ktd202x_info ktd2027 = {
> > + .num_leds = 4,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_chip_init(struct ktd202x *chip)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_write(chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL,
> > + KTD202X_ENABLE_CTRL_WAKE);
>
> Why does this have to be its own function?
>
> Can't we just put this call inside _chip_enable()?
>
> > +
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to enable the chip:
> > %d\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ktd202x_chip_disable(struct ktd202x *chip)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!chip->enabled)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + regmap_write(chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL,
> > + KTD202X_ENABLE_CTRL_SLEEP);
> > +
> > + ret = regulator_disable(chip->vin_regulator);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to disable regulator:
> > %d\n", ret);
>
> I would avoid printing out errors that have no affect or meaning.
>
> Since you are not returning an error, perhaps just make this a warn.
>
> Better yet, return the error?
>
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + chip->enabled = false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_chip_enable(struct ktd202x *chip)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (chip->enabled)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + ret = regulator_enable(chip->vin_regulator);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to enable regulator:
> > %d\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + chip->enabled = true;
>
> Does this require locks?
>
> > + ret = ktd202x_chip_init(chip);
> > + if (ret)
> > + ktd202x_chip_disable(chip);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool ktd202x_chip_in_use(struct ktd202x *chip)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + if (chip->num_leds == 1) {
>
> Why are we treating one LED differently to >=2?
>
> > + if (chip->leds[0].mcdev.led_cdev.brightness)
> > + return true;
> > + } else {
> > + for (i = 0; i < chip->num_leds; i++)
> > + if (chip->leds[i].cdev.brightness)
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ktd202x_brightness_set(struct ktd202x_led *led, struct
> > led_classdev *cdev,
> > + struct mc_subled *subleds,
> > unsigned int num_colors)
>
> Why have channels suddenly been converted to colours?
>
> > +{
> > + enum led_brightness brightness;
> > + int idx;
> > + int ret;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + if (ktd202x_chip_in_use(led->chip)) {
> > + ret = ktd202x_chip_enable(led->chip);
>
> Why are we ignoring return values?
>
> > + if (ret)
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_colors; i++) {
> > + idx = subleds[i].channel;
> > + brightness = subleds[i].brightness;
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_write(led->chip->regmap,
> > KTD202X_REG_LED_IOUT(idx),
> > + brightness ? brightness-1 : 0);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (brightness) {
> > + ret = regmap_update_bits(led->chip->regmap,
> > +
> > KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL,
> > +
> > KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(idx),
> > +
> > KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_ON(idx));
> > + } else {
> > + ret = regmap_update_bits(led->chip->regmap,
> > +
> > KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL,
> > +
> > KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(idx),
> > +
> > KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_OFF);
> > + }
> > + if (ret)
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!ktd202x_chip_in_use(led->chip))
> > + ktd202x_chip_disable(led->chip);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_brightness_single_set(struct led_classdev
> > *cdev,
> > + enum led_brightness value)
> > +{
> > + struct ktd202x_led *led = container_of(cdev, struct
> > ktd202x_led, cdev);
> > + struct mc_subled info;
> > + int num_channels = 1;
>
> Why do you need a variable for this?
>
> > + mutex_lock(&led->chip->mutex);
> > +
> > + info.brightness = value;
> > + info.channel = led->index;
> > + ktd202x_brightness_set(led, cdev, &info, num_channels);
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&led->chip->mutex);
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> This could be a lie, right? Why not aggregate the received error
> values?
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_brightness_mc_set(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> > + enum led_brightness value)
> > +{
> > + struct led_classdev_mc *mc = lcdev_to_mccdev(cdev);
> > + struct ktd202x_led *led = container_of(mc, struct
> > ktd202x_led, mcdev);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&led->chip->mutex);
> > +
> > + led_mc_calc_color_components(mc, value);
> > + ktd202x_brightness_set(led, cdev, mc->subled_info, mc-
> > >num_colors);
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&led->chip->mutex);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_blink_set(struct ktd202x_led *led, struct
> > led_classdev *cdev,
> > + unsigned long *delay_on, unsigned long
> > *delay_off,
> > + u8 ctrl_mask, u8 ctrl_on, u8
> > ctrl_pwm1)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long delay_total; /* ms */
>
> Change the variable name.
>
> > + int ret, num_steps, on;
> > +
> > + /* Never off - brightness is already set, disable blinking
> > */
> > + if (!*delay_off) {
> > + ret = regmap_update_bits(led->chip->regmap,
> > + KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL,
> > + ctrl_mask,
> > + ctrl_on);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Convert into values the HW will understand. */
> > + num_steps = (*delay_on + *delay_off - KTD202X_TIME_MIN) /
> > + KTD202X_TIME_STEP + 1;
> > + num_steps = min(126, num_steps);
>
> Please define this magic number.
>
> > + on = (*delay_on * KTD202X_ON_MAX) / (*delay_on +
> > *delay_off);
> > +
> > + delay_total = num_steps * KTD202X_TIME_STEP +
> > KTD202X_TIME_MIN;
> > + *delay_on = (delay_total * on) / KTD202X_ON_MAX;
> > + *delay_off = delay_total - *delay_on;
>
> Care to add a few comments to save the reader a few moments?
>
> > + /* Set timings */
> > + ret = regmap_write(led->chip->regmap,
> > KTD202X_REG_FLASH_PERIOD,
> > + num_steps);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> '\n' here.
>
> > + ret = regmap_write(led->chip->regmap,
> > KTD202X_REG_PWM1_TIMER, on);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_update_bits(led->chip->regmap,
> > KTD202X_REG_CHANNEL_CTRL,
> > + ctrl_mask,
> > + ctrl_pwm1);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_blink_single_set(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> > + unsigned long *delay_on,
> > + unsigned long *delay_off)
> > +{
> > + struct ktd202x_led *led = container_of(cdev, struct
> > ktd202x_led, cdev);
> > + struct led_classdev *lcdev;
>
> What's the difference between lcdev and cdev?
>
> If nothing, please keep the nomenclature consistent throughout.
>
> > + int index, ret;
> > + u8 ctrl_mask;
> > + u8 ctrl_on;
> > + u8 ctrl_pwm1;
> > +
> > + lcdev = &led->cdev;
>
> Why can't this be part of the declaration above?
>
> > + /* If no blink specified, default to 1 Hz. */
> > + if (!*delay_off && !*delay_on) {
> > + *delay_off = 500;
> > + *delay_on = 500;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!lcdev->brightness) {
> > + lcdev->brightness = LED_FULL;
>
> LED_FULL is supposed to be deprecated:
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/leds.h#L32
>
> > + ret = ktd202x_brightness_single_set(lcdev, lcdev-
> > >brightness);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Never on - just set to off */
> > + if (!*delay_on) {
> > + lcdev->brightness = LED_OFF;
>
> Instead of setting this before the call here and above, can you do it
> centrally inside the call?
>
> > + return ktd202x_brightness_single_set(lcdev,
> > LED_OFF);
> > + }
> > +
> > + index = led->index;
> > + ctrl_mask = KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(index);
> > + ctrl_on = KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_ON(index);
> > + ctrl_pwm1 = KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_PWM1(index);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&led->chip->mutex);
>
> Maybe lock inside the call, save some lines here and below?
>
> > + ret = ktd202x_blink_set(led, lcdev, delay_on, delay_off,
> > ctrl_mask,
> > + ctrl_on, ctrl_pwm1);
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&led->chip->mutex);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_blink_mc_set(struct led_classdev *cdev,
> > + unsigned long *delay_on,
> > + unsigned long *delay_off)
> > +{
> > + struct led_classdev_mc *mc = lcdev_to_mccdev(cdev);
> > + struct ktd202x_led *led = container_of(mc, struct
> > ktd202x_led, mcdev);
> > + struct led_classdev *lcdev;
> > + u8 ctrl_mask = 0;
> > + u8 ctrl_on = 0;
> > + u8 ctrl_pwm1 = 0;
> > + int ret, i;
> > +
> > + lcdev = &led->mcdev.led_cdev;
> > +
> > + /* If no blink specified, default to 1 Hz. */
> > + if (!*delay_off && !*delay_on) {
> > + *delay_off = 500;
> > + *delay_on = 500;
> > + }
>
> Can this be moved down below the 2 early returns below?
It could only be moved below the first early return,
as the second checks 'delay_on' which might have changed by the if
condition above.
>
> > + if (!lcdev->brightness) {
> > + lcdev->brightness = LED_FULL;
> > + ret = ktd202x_brightness_mc_set(lcdev, lcdev-
> > >brightness);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Never on - just set to off */
> > + if (!*delay_on) {
> > + lcdev->brightness = LED_OFF;
> > + return ktd202x_brightness_mc_set(lcdev, LED_OFF);
> > + }
>
> I see a lot of hoop jumping and code repetition between single and
> multi-color. Is there no way to treat the multi-color case as
> multiple single colours?
Will see what I can do here.
>
> > + for (i = 0; i < mc->num_colors; i++) {
> > + int index = mc->subled_info[i].channel;
> > +
> > + ctrl_mask |= KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_MASK(index);
> > + ctrl_on |= KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_ON(index);
> > + ctrl_pwm1 |= KTD202X_CHANNEL_CTRL_PWM1(index);
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&led->chip->mutex);
> > +
> > + ret = ktd202x_blink_set(led, lcdev, delay_on, delay_off,
> > ctrl_mask,
> > + ctrl_on, ctrl_pwm1);
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&led->chip->mutex);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_add_led(struct ktd202x *chip, struct
> > device_node *np,
> > + unsigned int index)
> > +{
> > + struct led_init_data init_data = {};
> > + struct led_classdev *cdev;
> > + struct device_node *child;
> > + struct mc_subled *info;
> > + struct ktd202x_led *led = &chip->leds[index];
> > + int num_channels;
> > + u32 color = 0;
> > + u32 reg;
> > + int ret;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "color", &color);
> > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
>
> This is unusual. Why are we allowing -EINVAL?
>
> Does this make it optional?
>
> If that's the case, perhaps a comment?
It was taken from
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/leds/rgb/leds-qcom-lpg.c?h=v6.5-rc5#n1126
I have to check again why.
>
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to parse \"color\" of
> > %pOF\n", np);
>
> That's pretty ugly. Can you use single quotes instead?
>
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (color == LED_COLOR_ID_RGB) {
> > + num_channels = of_get_available_child_count(np);
> > + if (!num_channels || num_channels > chip->num_leds)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + } else {
> > + num_channels = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + led->chip = chip;
> > +
> > + if (color == LED_COLOR_ID_RGB) {
> > + info = devm_kcalloc(chip->dev, num_channels,
> > sizeof(*info),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!info)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + i = 0;
> > + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > + u32 color = 0;
>
> Not sure I've seen anyone overload a variable in the kernel before.
>
> LED_COLOR_ID_WHITE
>
> Is that correct? No colour means that it's white?
It's just to initialize the variable, but if that's not needed I'll
remove '= 0' (and I'll rename 'color').
>
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "reg",
> > ®);
> > + if (ret != 0 || reg >= chip->num_leds) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "invalid \"reg\"
> > of %pOFn\n",
> > + np);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32(child, "color",
> > &color);
> > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev,
> > + "failed to parse \"color\"
> > of %pOF\n",
> > + np);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + info[i].color_index = color;
> > + info[i].channel = reg;
> > + info[i].intensity = 0;
> > + i++;
> > + }
> > +
> > + led->mcdev.subled_info = info;
> > + led->mcdev.num_colors = num_channels;
> > +
> > + cdev = &led->mcdev.led_cdev;
> > + cdev->brightness_set_blocking =
> > ktd202x_brightness_mc_set;
> > + cdev->blink_set = ktd202x_blink_mc_set;
> > + } else {
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "reg", ®);
> > + if (ret != 0 || reg >= chip->num_leds) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "invalid \"reg\" of
> > %pOFn\n", np);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + led->index = reg;
> > +
> > + cdev = &led->cdev;
> > + cdev->brightness_set_blocking =
> > ktd202x_brightness_single_set;
> > + cdev->blink_set = ktd202x_blink_single_set;
> > + }
> > +
> > + cdev->max_brightness = 192;
>
> Define please.
>
> > + init_data.fwnode = of_fwnode_handle(np);
> > +
> > + if (color == LED_COLOR_ID_RGB)
> > + ret =
> > devm_led_classdev_multicolor_register_ext(chip->dev,
> > + &le
> > d->mcdev,
> > + &in
> > it_data);
> > + else
> > + ret = devm_led_classdev_register_ext(chip->dev,
> > &led->cdev,
> > + &init_data);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "unable to register %s\n", cdev-
> > >name);
> > + of_node_put(np);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_probe_dt(struct ktd202x *chip)
> > +{
> > + struct device_node *np = dev_of_node(chip->dev), *child;
> > + const struct ktd202x_info *ktd202x;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + int count, ret;
> > +
> > + ktd202x = of_device_get_match_data(chip->dev);
> > + if (!ktd202x)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + chip->num_leds = ktd202x->num_leds;
> > +
> > + count = of_get_available_child_count(np);
> > + if (!count || count > ktd202x->num_leds)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + regmap_write(chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL,
> > + KTD202X_RSTR_RESET);
>
> '\n'
>
> > + /* allow the device to execute the complete reset */
>
> "Allow"
>
> > + usleep_range(200, 300);
> > +
> > + i = 0;
> > + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > + ret = ktd202x_add_led(chip, child, i);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + i++;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct regmap_config ktd202x_regmap_config = {
> > + .reg_bits = 8,
> > + .val_bits = 8,
> > + .max_register = 0x09,
> > + .cache_type = REGCACHE_FLAT,
> > + .reg_defaults = ktd202x_reg_defaults,
> > + .num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(ktd202x_reg_defaults),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int ktd202x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +{
> > + struct ktd202x *chip;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + chip = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*chip),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!chip)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + mutex_init(&chip->mutex);
> > + mutex_lock(&chip->mutex);
>
> Locking during the whole of probe is unusual.
>
> Are you sure this is required?
This was inspired by
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/leds/leds-aw2013.c?h=v6.5-rc5#n338
I'll remove it in the next version.
>
> > + chip->dev = &client->dev;
> > + i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
> > +
> > + chip->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(client,
> > &ktd202x_regmap_config);
> > + if (IS_ERR(chip->regmap)) {
> > + ret = dev_err_probe(&client->dev, PTR_ERR(chip-
> > >regmap),
> > + "Failed to allocate register
> > map.\n");
> > + goto error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + chip->vin_regulator = devm_regulator_get(&client->dev,
> > "vin");
> > + ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(chip->vin_regulator);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret,
> > + "Failed to request regulator.\n");
> > + goto error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = regulator_enable(chip->vin_regulator);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret,
> > + "Failed to enable regulator.\n");
> > + goto error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = ktd202x_probe_dt(chip);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto error_reg;
> > +
> > + ret = regulator_disable(chip->vin_regulator);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err_probe(&client->dev, ret,
> > + "Failed to disable regulator.\n");
> > + goto error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > +error_reg:
> > + regulator_disable(chip->vin_regulator);
> > +
> > +error:
> > + mutex_destroy(&chip->mutex);
>
> No need to unlock first?
>
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ktd202x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +{
> > + struct ktd202x *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > +
> > + ktd202x_chip_disable(chip);
> > +
> > + mutex_destroy(&chip->mutex);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ktd202x_shutdown(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +{
> > + struct ktd202x *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > +
> > + /* Reset registers to make sure all off before shutdown */
> > + regmap_write(chip->regmap, KTD202X_REG_RESET_CONTROL,
> > + KTD202X_RSTR_RESET);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id ktd202x_match_table[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "kinetic,ktd2026", .data = &ktd2026 },
>
> .data = KTD2026_NUM_LEDS;
>
> > + { .compatible = "kinetic,ktd2027", .data = &ktd2027 },
> > + { /* sentinel */ },
>
> Please remove this comment. We know how NULL entries work.
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ktd202x_match_table);
> > +
> > +static struct i2c_driver ktd202x_driver = {
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "leds-ktd202x",
> > + .of_match_table =
> > of_match_ptr(ktd202x_match_table),
>
> Last I heard we were removing these of_match_ptr()s?
>
> Might be old info though. Someone else should confirm.
You seem to be right. There are a lot of "drop of_match_ptr for ID
table" commits by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
Best regards,
André
>
> > + },
> > + .probe_new = ktd202x_probe,
> > + .remove = ktd202x_remove,
> > + .shutdown = ktd202x_shutdown,
> > +};
> > +
>
> Remove this line.
>
> > +module_i2c_driver(ktd202x_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("André Apitzsch <git@xxxxxxxxxxx>");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Kinetic KTD2026/7 LED driver");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >
> > --
> > 2.41.0
> >
>
