Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:15:35 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] leds: rt4505: Add support for Richtek RT4505 flash led controller |
| |
Hi!
> > Please use upper-case "LED" everywhere. > > > > This should be 2nd in the series, after DT changes. > Sure, will ack in next series patch.
Feel free to wait for dt ACKs before resending.
> > > + help > > > + This option enables support for the RT4505 flash led controller. > > > > Information where it is used would be welcome here. > How about to add the below line for the extra information? > Usually used to company with the camera device on smartphone/tablet > products
Yes, that would help.
"It is commonly used in smartphones, such as Bell Packard T899" would be even better.
> > > + ret = regmap_update_bits(priv->regmap, RT4505_REG_ENABLE, RT4505_ENABLE_MASK, val); > > > + > > > +unlock: > > > + mutex_unlock(&priv->lock); > > > + return ret; > > > +} > > > > Why is the locking needed? What will the /sys/class/leds interface > > look like on system with your flash? > > The original thought is because there's still another way to control > flash like as v4l2. > But after reviewing the source code, led sysfs node will be protected > by led_cdev->led_access. > And V4L2 flash will also be protected by v4l2_fh_is_singular API. > I think the whole locking in the source code code may be removed. Right?
Well, maybe you need it, I did not check..
What will the /sys/class/leds interface look like on system with your flash?
> > > + *state = ((val & RT4505_FLASH_GET) == RT4505_FLASH_GET) ? true : false; > > > > No need for ? ... part. > Do you mean this function is not needed? If yes, it can be removed. > But if it removed, led sysfs flash_strobe show will be not supported.
I meant "replace line with: *state = (val & RT4505_FLASH_GET) == RT4505_FLASH_GET;"
> > > +static bool rt4505_is_accessible_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) > > > +{ > > > + if (reg == RT4505_REG_RESET || (reg >= RT4505_REG_CONFIG && reg <= RT4505_REG_FLAGS)) > > > + return true; > > > > Make this two stagements. > Like as the below one?? Or separate it into two if case. > if (reg == RT4505_REG_RESET || > reg >= RT4505_REG_CONFIG && reg <= RT4505_REG_FLAGS))
That would be fine, too... if you use just one space before "&&" :-).
Best regards, Pavel -- http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |