On Wed, 10 Jul 2024, Bastien Curutchet wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> On 6/17/24 16:39, Bastien Curutchet wrote:
>
> > +static int pca9532_update_hw_blink(struct pca9532_led *led,
> > + unsigned long delay_on, unsigned long delay_off)
> > +{
> > + struct pca9532_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(led->client);
> > + unsigned int psc;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + /* Look for others LEDs that already use PWM1 */
> > + for (i = 0; i < data->chip_info->num_leds; i++) {
> > + struct pca9532_led *other = &data->leds[i];
> > +
> > + if (other == led)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (other->state == PCA9532_PWM1) {
> > + if (other->ldev.blink_delay_on != delay_on ||
> > + other->ldev.blink_delay_off != delay_off) {
> > + dev_err(&led->client->dev,
> > + "HW can handle only one blink configuration at a time\n");
>
> I'm having some second thoughts about this dev_err().
>
> It was dev_dbg() in V1, but based on your suggestion, I changed it to
> dev_err() because an error was returned after.
>
> I've worked more with this patch since it got applied, these error messages
> appear frequently, though they don’t seem to be 'real' errors to me as the
> software callback is used afterwards and the LED blinks at the expected
> period.
>
> Don't you think a dev_dbg() would be more appropriate in this case ? Or
> perhaps a comment instead of a message ?
If it's not an error, then don't return an error message.
Maybe drop the message for a comment and return -EBUSY instead?
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + psc = ((delay_on + delay_off) * PCA9532_PWM_PERIOD_DIV - 1) / 1000;
> > + if (psc > U8_MAX) {
> > + dev_err(&led->client->dev, "Blink period too long to be handled by hardware\n");
>
> Same comments for this dev_err()
>
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
>
> Best regards,
> Bastien
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
