On 11/16/2015 08:53 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800 > Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net> wrote: > >> On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> 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)) >> >> s/((p))/(p)/ >> >>> | >>> -(p)->period = e; >>> +pwm_set_period((p), e); >>> | >>> -(p)->period >>> +pwm_get_period((p)) >> >> s/((p))/(p)/ >> >>> | >>> -(p)->duty_cycle = e; >>> +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e); >> >> The (p) seems unnecessary here. > > I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around > p, right? > Same as above - s/(p)/p/. It should never be necessary to write pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e) since pwm_set_duty_cycle(p, e) should be the same. On the other side, I did not see this expression used in any of the patches, though maybe I missed it. Thanks, Guenter
