Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] leds: Add support for RTL8231 LED scan matrix | From | Sander Vanheule <> | Date | Mon, 24 May 2021 14:04:42 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 13:24 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 1:34 AM Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net> wrote: > > > > Both single and bi-color scanning modes are supported. The driver will > > verify that the addresses are valid for the current mode, before > > registering the LEDs. LEDs can be turned on, off, or toggled at one of > > six predefined rates from 40ms to 1280ms. > > > > Implements a platform device for use as a child device with RTL8231 MFD, > > and uses the parent regmap to access the required registers. > > ... > > > + This options enables support for using the LED scanning matrix > > output > > option
Fixed.
> > > + of the RTL8231 GPIO and LED expander chip. > > + When built as a module, this module will be named leds-rtl8231. > > ... > > > + interval_ms = 500; > > Does this deserve a #define?
Fine by me. Doesn't make a difference for the binary anyway, but it helps document the code a bit.
> ... > > > + ret = fwnode_property_count_u32(fwnode, "reg"); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + return ret; > > + if (ret != 2) > > + return -ENODEV; > > I would say -EINVAL, but -ENODEV is similarly okay.
Any specific reason you think EINVAL is more appropriate than ENODEV?
> ... > > > + int err; > > ret or err? Be consistent across a single driver.
I had first used 'err' for both fwnode_property_count_u32() and fwnode_property_read_u32_array(). The former returns "actual count or error code", while the latter is only "error code". And I found it weird to read the code as "does error code equal 2", if I used 'err' as variable name.
I've split this up: * addr_count for fwnode_property_count_u32's result * err for fwnode_property_read_u32_array's result
Since addr_count is only used before err is touched, I guess the compiler will optimize this out anyway?
Best, Sander
| |