Hi Jacek,
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:56:47PM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
>
> On 12/09/2014 01:36 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >Hi Jacek,
> >
> >On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 10:29:10AM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> >...
> >>>>+static struct attribute *led_flash_strobe_attrs[] = {
> >>>>+ &dev_attr_flash_strobe.attr,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static struct attribute *led_flash_timeout_attrs[] = {
> >>>>+ &dev_attr_flash_timeout.attr,
> >>>>+ &dev_attr_max_flash_timeout.attr,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static struct attribute *led_flash_brightness_attrs[] = {
> >>>>+ &dev_attr_flash_brightness.attr,
> >>>>+ &dev_attr_max_flash_brightness.attr,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static struct attribute *led_flash_fault_attrs[] = {
> >>>>+ &dev_attr_flash_fault.attr,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static struct attribute *led_flash_sync_strobe_attrs[] = {
> >>>>+ &dev_attr_flash_sync_strobe.attr,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static const struct attribute_group led_flash_strobe_group = {
> >>>>+ .attrs = led_flash_strobe_attrs,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static const struct attribute_group led_flash_timeout_group = {
> >>>>+ .attrs = led_flash_timeout_attrs,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static const struct attribute_group led_flash_brightness_group = {
> >>>>+ .attrs = led_flash_brightness_attrs,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static const struct attribute_group led_flash_fault_group = {
> >>>>+ .attrs = led_flash_fault_attrs,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static const struct attribute_group led_flash_sync_strobe_group = {
> >>>>+ .attrs = led_flash_sync_strobe_attrs,
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static const struct attribute_group *flash_groups[] = {
> >>>>+ &led_flash_strobe_group,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+ NULL,
> >>>>+ NULL
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static void led_flash_resume(struct led_classdev *led_cdev)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ struct led_classdev_flash *flash = lcdev_to_flash(led_cdev);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ call_flash_op(flash, flash_brightness_set, flash->brightness.val);
> >>>>+ call_flash_op(flash, timeout_set, flash->timeout.val);
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static void led_flash_init_sysfs_groups(struct led_classdev_flash *flash)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ struct led_classdev *led_cdev = &flash->led_cdev;
> >>>>+ const struct led_flash_ops *ops = flash->ops;
> >>>>+ int num_sysfs_groups = 1;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (ops->flash_brightness_set)
> >>>>+ flash_groups[num_sysfs_groups++] = &led_flash_brightness_group;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (ops->timeout_set)
> >>>>+ flash_groups[num_sysfs_groups++] = &led_flash_timeout_group;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (ops->fault_get)
> >>>>+ flash_groups[num_sysfs_groups++] = &led_flash_fault_group;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (led_cdev->flags & LED_DEV_CAP_COMPOUND)
> >>>>+ flash_groups[num_sysfs_groups++] = &led_flash_sync_strobe_group;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ led_cdev->groups = flash_groups;
> >>>
> >>>Shouldn't you have groups local to the device instead? If you register
> >>>another flash device bad things will happen if the ops the device supports
> >>>are different.
> >>
> >>The groups are local to the device. A LED class device is registered
> >>with device_create_with_groups called from led_classdev_register
> >>function. It is passed led_cdev->groups in the fifth argument.
> >
> >The groups pointer will be stored in struct device. If you have another
> >driver using different groups, it will affect the groups for all flash
> >devices that use the same groups pointer. I'm not sure what exactly would
> >follow from that but I'd rather not change them once the device is created.
>
> I had to take another look at this to understand the problem.
> I think that the best option will be making flash_groups array
> a member of struct led_classdev_flash.
Sounds good to me.
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+int led_classdev_flash_register(struct device *parent,
> >>>>+ struct led_classdev_flash *flash)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ struct led_classdev *led_cdev;
> >>>>+ const struct led_flash_ops *ops;
> >>>>+ int ret;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (!flash)
> >>>
> >>>Do you have a use case for this?
> >>
> >>This is just a guard against NULL pointer dereference. Maybe it is
> >>indeed redundant, as the driver developer can easily check its
> >>origin during implementation.
> >
> >Fine for me.
>
> Fine regarding my explanation or you agree that it is redundant?
:-) With the explanation. I might have removed it but I'm having it there as
well.
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
