On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:55:33 -0800
Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net> wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 05:55 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:10:40 +0900
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski at samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> >> W dniu 16.11.2015 o 17:56, Boris Brezillon pisze:
> >>> Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
> >>> Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
> >>> update.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
> >>>
> >>> --->8---
> >>> virtual patch
> >>>
> >>> @@
> >>> struct pwm_device *p;
> >>> expression e;
> >>> @@
> >>> (
> >>> -(p)->polarity = e;
> >>> +pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
> >>> |
> >>> -(p)->polarity
> >>> +pwm_get_polarity((p))
> >>> |
> >>> -(p)->period = e;
> >>> +pwm_set_period((p), e);
> >>> |
> >>> -(p)->period
> >>> +pwm_get_period((p))
> >>> |
> >>> -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
> >>> +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
> >>> |
> >>> -(p)->duty_cycle
> >>> +pwm_get_duty_cycle((p))
> >>> )
> >>> --->8---
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c | 7 ++++---
> >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> >>> index 6d96bff..a038fb3 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
> >>> @@ -70,10 +70,11 @@ struct max77693_haptic {
> >>>
> >>> static int max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
> >>> {
> >>> - int delta = (haptic->pwm_dev->period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
> >>> + int delta = (pwm_get_period((haptic->pwm_dev)) + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
> >>
> >> Double parentheses over argument are not needed so just:
> >> pwm_get_period(haptic->pwm_dev) + ...
> >
> > Actually it was generated with coccinelle, hence I didn't fix existing
> > coding style issues, but I have no problem fixing them.
> >
> There was no existing coding style issue. Your coccinelle script introduces it.
> You might want to consider updating your script and remove the unnecessary (( ))
> from it.
My bad, you are right: my script is buggy. I'll fix that.
Thanks,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
