Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:13:03 +0000 | From | "Russell King (Oracle)" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 01/11] leds: add support for hardware driven LEDs |
| |
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the patch.
I think Andrew's email is offline at the moment.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:54:28AM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote: > +static bool led_trigger_is_supported(struct led_classdev *led_cdev, > + struct led_trigger *trigger) > +{ > + switch (led_cdev->blink_mode) { > + case SOFTWARE_CONTROLLED: > + if (trigger->supported_blink_modes == HARDWARE_ONLY) > + return 0; > + break; > + case HARDWARE_CONTROLLED: > + if (trigger->supported_blink_modes == SOFTWARE_ONLY) > + return 0; > + break; > + case SOFTWARE_HARDWARE_CONTROLLED: > + break; > + default: > + return 0; > + } > + > + return 1;
Should be returning true/false. I'm not sure I'm a fan of the style of this though - wouldn't the following be easier to read?
switch (led_cdev->blink_mode) { case SOFTWARE_CONTROLLED: return trigger->supported_blink_modes != HARDWARE_ONLY;
case HARDWARE_CONTROLLED: return trigger->supported_blink_modes != SOFTWARE_ONLY;
case SOFTWARE_HARDWARE_CONTROLLED: return true; } ?
Also, does it really need a default case - without it, when the led_blink_modes enum is expanded and the switch statement isn't updated, we'll get a compiler warning which will prompt this to be updated - whereas, with a default case, it won't.
> @@ -188,6 +213,10 @@ int led_trigger_set(struct led_classdev *led_cdev, struct led_trigger *trig) > led_set_brightness(led_cdev, LED_OFF); > } > if (trig) { > + /* Make sure the trigger support the LED blink mode */ > + if (!led_trigger_is_supported(led_cdev, trig)) > + return -EINVAL;
Shouldn't validation happen before we start taking any actions? In other words, before we remove the previous trigger?
> @@ -350,12 +381,26 @@ static inline bool led_sysfs_is_disabled(struct led_classdev *led_cdev) > > #define TRIG_NAME_MAX 50 > > +enum led_trigger_blink_supported_modes { > + SOFTWARE_ONLY = SOFTWARE_CONTROLLED, > + HARDWARE_ONLY = HARDWARE_CONTROLLED, > + SOFTWARE_HARDWARE = SOFTWARE_HARDWARE_CONTROLLED,
I suspect all these generic names are asking for eventual namespace clashes. Maybe prefix them with LED_ ?
Thanks.
-- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
| |