Hi Andy,
Thank you for reviewing.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 1:29 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 8:39 AM Kate Hsuan <hpa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This LED controller is installed on a Xiaomi pad2 and it is an x86
> > platform. The original driver is based on the device tree and can't be
> > used for this ACPI based system. This patch migrated the driver to use
> > fwnode to access the properties. Moreover, the fwnode API supports the
> > device tree so this work won't affect the original implementations.
>
> ...
>
> > - int num_channels;
> > + int num_channels = 0;
>
> Split this assignment, so...
>
> > int i = 0;
>
> > - num_channels = of_get_available_child_count(np);
>
> ...it become
>
> num_channels = 0;
>
> here.
>
> > + fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(fwnode, child)
> > + num_channels++;
>
It will look like this:
num_channels = 0;
fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(fwnode, child)
num_channels++;
> ...
>
> > -static int ktd202x_add_led(struct ktd202x *chip, struct device_node *np, unsigned int index)
> > +static int ktd202x_add_led(struct ktd202x *chip,
> > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > + unsigned int index)
>
> Why split over 3 lines? I believe it can be still two or one
> (depending if you use a relaxed limit).
Make it to be one line.
>
> ...
>
> > static int ktd202x_probe_dt(struct ktd202x *chip)
>
> Perhaps you want to rename this to something like ktd202x_probe_fw().
Sounds good.
>
> ...
>
> > + fwnode = dev_fwnode(dev);
>
> Will be no use if the bellow applied, right?
Right. It can be dropped.
>
> ...
>
> > - for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > + fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(fwnode, child) {
>
> Use device_for_each_child_node() instead.
Okay.
>
> > }
>
> ...
>
> > - .shutdown = ktd202x_shutdown,
> > + .shutdown = ktd202x_shutdown
>
> Stray change.
I know the reason :)
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
--
BR,
Kate
