On 2024-05-28 05:09:29+0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 12:00:32PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-cros_ec.c b/drivers/leds/leds-cros_ec.c
> [...]
> > + * ChromesOS EC LED Driver
>
> s/ChromesOS/ChromeOS/.
Ack.
> > +static int cros_ec_led_trigger_activate(struct led_classdev *led_cdev)
> > +{
> > + struct cros_ec_led_priv *priv = cros_ec_led_cdev_to_priv(led_cdev);
> > + union cros_ec_led_cmd_data arg = { };
>
> To be neat, { } -> {}.
Ack.
> > +static int cros_ec_led_brightness_set_blocking(struct led_classdev *led_cdev,
> > + enum led_brightness brightness)
> > +{
> > + struct cros_ec_led_priv *priv = cros_ec_led_cdev_to_priv(led_cdev);
> > + union cros_ec_led_cmd_data arg = { };
>
> Ditto.
>
> > +static int cros_ec_led_count_subleds(struct device *dev,
> > + struct ec_response_led_control *resp,
> > + unsigned int *max_brightness)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int range, common_range = 0;
> > + int num_subleds = 0;
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < EC_LED_COLOR_COUNT; i++) {
> > + range = resp->brightness_range[i];
> > +
> > + if (!range)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + num_subleds++;
> > +
> > + if (!common_range)
> > + common_range = range;
> > +
> > + if (common_range != range) {
> > + /* The multicolor LED API expects a uniform max_brightness */
> > + dev_warn(dev, "Inconsistent LED brightness values\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> What if the array is [0, 1, 1]?
The "0" will be skipped by
if (!range)
continue;
And the two "1" will pass the check.
>
> > +static int cros_ec_led_probe_led(struct device *dev, struct cros_ec_device *cros_ec,
> > + enum ec_led_id id)
> > +{
> > + union cros_ec_led_cmd_data arg = { };
>
> Ditto.
>
> > +static int cros_ec_led_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> [...]
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < EC_LED_ID_COUNT; i++) {
> > + ret = cros_ec_led_probe_led(dev, cros_ec, i);
> > + if (ret)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
>
> `ret` should be initialized in case EC_LED_ID_COUNT would be somehow 0.
As that's a constant define, this should never happen.
But after thinking about it, it seems a bit clearer.
The compiler should figure out that it's redundant anyways.
> > +static int __init cros_ec_led_init(void)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = led_trigger_register(&cros_ec_led_trigger);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + ret = platform_driver_register(&cros_ec_led_driver);
> > + if (ret)
> > + led_trigger_unregister(&cros_ec_led_trigger);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +};
> > +module_init(cros_ec_led_init);
> > +
> > +static void __exit cros_ec_led_exit(void)
> > +{
> > + platform_driver_unregister(&cros_ec_led_driver);
> > + led_trigger_unregister(&cros_ec_led_trigger);
> > +};
> > +module_exit(cros_ec_led_exit);
>
> I wonder it could use module_led_trigger() and module_platform_driver().
This won't compile as the macros generate various duplicate symbols.
Also the order is important, so I think the explicit logic is clearer.
Thomas
