Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:59:38 +0100 | From | Jacek Anaszewski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] leds: rt5033: Add RT5033 Flash led device driver |
| |
Hi Ingi,
On 11/30/2015 03:31 AM, Ingi Kim wrote: > Hi Jacek, > > On 2015년 11월 26일 18:43, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >> Hi Ingi, >> >> On 11/26/2015 09:02 AM, Ingi Kim wrote: >> [...] >>>>> +torch_unlock: >>>>> + mutex_unlock(&led->lock); >>>>> + return ret; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +static int rt5033_led_flash_brightness_set(struct led_classdev_flash *fled_cdev, >>>>> + u32 brightness) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct rt5033_sub_led *sub_led = flcdev_to_sub_led(fled_cdev); >>>>> + struct rt5033_led *led = sub_led_to_led(sub_led); >>>>> + >>>>> + mutex_lock(&led->lock); >>>>> + sub_led->flash_brightness = brightness; >>>>> + mutex_unlock(&led->lock); >>>> >>>> Mutex protection is redundant in this case. You would need it if device >>>> state was also changed here. >>> >>> Okay, I'll remove it. >>> >>>> >>>> BTW why flash brightness can't be written to the device here? >>>> >>> >>> Flash brightness is only affected when FLED flashed (strobing). >>> So, I think it is better to be written in rt5033_led_flash_strobe_set function. >> >> strobe_set op should strobe the flash ASAP, and delegating brightness >> setting there extends a delay between calling strobe_set op >> and actual flash strobe. If you set the brightness here, then you >> wouldn't have to do that in the strobe_set op, of course unless the >> the brightness is altered through the API of the other LED, in two >> separate LEDs case. >> > > The brightness may be able to change its brightness in two separate LEDs case as you see. > So, I think it would be better to write brightness setting in strobe_op.
Could you motivate your statement, please? Why would it be better?
> In consideration of delay, of course, the brightness is set just when it would be changed.
I think that joint iout arrangement will be prevailing - this is the case for your board, isn't it? With the modification I am proposing the gain is clear.
>>>>> + >>>>> + return 0; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +static int rt5033_led_flash_timeout_set(struct led_classdev_flash *fled_cdev, >>>>> + u32 timeout) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct rt5033_sub_led *sub_led = flcdev_to_sub_led(fled_cdev); >>>>> + struct rt5033_led *led = sub_led_to_led(sub_led); >>>>> + >>>>> + mutex_lock(&led->lock); >>>>> + sub_led->flash_timeout = timeout; >>>>> + mutex_unlock(&led->lock); >>>> >>>> Ditto. >>>> >> >> Timeout should be also written here. >> > > The timeout may be able to change its flash timeout in two separate LEDs case as you see. > So, I think it would be better to write timeout setting in strobe_op. > In consideration of delay, of course, the timeout is set just when it would be changed. > >> If you will add regmap_write in both ops, then mutex protection will >> have to be preserved, to assure consistency between registers state >> and sub_led->flash_brightness and sub_led->flash_timeout state. >> > > Thanks, but mutex protection is useless in this case. > so I try to remove it. > >>> >>>>> +#define RT5033_FLED_CTRL4_VTRREG_MAX 0x60 >>>> >>>> Rename DEF to MASK. >> >> Hmm, here it should be: Rename MAX to MASK. >> > > Oh > Okay, Thanks :) >
-- Best Regards, Jacek Anaszewski
| |