On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 7:02 PM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Co-Developed-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> If you (Heiner) are going to be the "From" author, then this line should not be here. > + Say Y to enable support for Titan Micro Electronics TM1628 > + LED controller. > + It's a 3-wire SPI device controlling a two-dimensional grid of > + LEDs. Dimming is applied to all outputs through an internal PWM. Maybe a newline between paragraphs? > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Andreas Färber ...here: should there be entries for you (Heiner) too? If not, should Andreas be the "From" author? This also applies to the `MODULE_AUTHOR`. Also it may be a good idea to add the emails: MODULE_AUTHOR("Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx>"); MODULE_AUTHOR("Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>"); (You may also want to consider adding an entry on `MAINTAINERS`). > + u8 cmd = TM1628_CMD_DISPLAY_MODE | grid_mode; Consider using `const` for some of the variables. > + for (i = 0; i < s->grid_size; i++) { > + int pos = s->grid[i] - 1; > + > + if (i < msg_len) { Consider inverting the condition, doing the set to `0` + `continue;` to avoid the indentation. > + struct tm1628_led *led = container_of(led_cdev, struct tm1628_led, leddev); > + struct tm1628 *s = led->ctrl; > + int offset; > + __le16 bit; Style: sometimes the variables are initialized right away using a value from above, but other times they are done below. > + if (count > s->grid_size + 1) /* consider trailing newline */ Style: sometimes comments are trailing the line, others are above. Also, sometimes they start with uppercase, but in other cases they do not. Also, about the `+ 1`: is it possible that sysfs gives us a buffer full of `isprint()`? i.e. is it possible that `grid_size == MAX_GRID_SIZE` and `count == MAX_GRID_SIZE + 1` and then we perform an out-of-bounds store to `MAX_GRID_SIZE + 2` in `text`? > + ret = tm1628_write_data(spi, 0, MAX_GRID_SIZE); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + /* Assume that subsequent SPI transfers will be ok if first was ok */ If not, is there a consequence? i.e. why wouldn't one check and fail similarly in the `tm1628_set_*` calls below? > + if (!IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_LEDS_CLASS)) > + goto no_leds; What about putting the code in the `if` body (negating the condition)? > + num_leds = 0; This is reusing the variable for a different purpose, no? i.e. if we did not get here, we would have no leds, yet we would report the number above. > + device_for_each_child_node(&spi->dev, child) { > + u32 reg[2]; > + > + ret = fwnode_property_read_u32_array(child, "reg", reg, 2); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(&spi->dev, "Reading %s reg property failed (%d)\n", > + fwnode_get_name(child), ret); Is a failure expected? i.e. this `continue;`s, but should it fail or is it OK to proceed? > + for (i = 0; i < 7; i++) { Maybe a `#define` for several of the `7`s around? > +static void tm1628_spi_remove(struct spi_device *spi) Doesn't `.remove` return `int`? Thanks! Cheers, Miguel