Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-147312-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240416053909.256319-1-hpa@redhat.com> <20240416053909.256319-3-hpa@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240416053909.256319-3-hpa@redhat.com>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:29:05 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vdw6gCN=45iRdKcm=qT07Z90+z6Cw=inYR+C6+5gML+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] leds: rgb: leds-ktd202x: Get device properties
 through fwnode to support ACPI
To: Kate Hsuan <hpa@redhat.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, 
	platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Ilpo_J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Apitzsch?= <git@apitzsch.eu>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 8:39=E2=80=AFAM Kate Hsuan <hpa@redhat.com> 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 =3D 0;

Split this assignment, so...

>         int i =3D 0;

> -       num_channels =3D of_get_available_child_count(np);

..it become

  num_channels =3D 0;

here.

> +       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).

..

>  static int ktd202x_probe_dt(struct ktd202x *chip)

Perhaps you want to rename this to something like ktd202x_probe_fw().

..

> +       fwnode =3D dev_fwnode(dev);

Will be no use if the bellow applied, right?

..

> -       for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> +       fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(fwnode, child) {

Use device_for_each_child_node() instead.

>         }

..

> -       .shutdown =3D ktd202x_shutdown,
> +       .shutdown =3D ktd202x_shutdown

Stray change.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko