Re: [PATCH v4 04/24] hwmon: pwm-fan: use pwm_get_xxx() helpers where appropriate

[Guenter Roeck]

On 11/16/2015 08:53 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:59:23 -0800
> Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 11/16/2015 12:56 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Use pwm_get_xxx() helpers instead of directly accessing the pwm->xxx field.
> > > Doing that will ease adaptation of the PWM framework to support atomic
> > > update.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Patch generated with the following coccinelle script:
> > >
> > > --->8---
> > > virtual patch
> > >
> > > @@
> > > struct pwm_device *p;
> > > expression e;
> > > @@
> > > (
> > > -(p)->polarity = e;
> > > +pwm_set_polarity((p), e);
> > > |
> > > -(p)->polarity
> > > +pwm_get_polarity((p))
> >
> > s/((p))/(p)/
> >
> > > |
> > > -(p)->period = e;
> > > +pwm_set_period((p), e);
> > > |
> > > -(p)->period
> > > +pwm_get_period((p))
> >
> > s/((p))/(p)/
> >
> > > |
> > > -(p)->duty_cycle = e;
> > > +pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
> >
> > The (p) seems unnecessary here.
>
> I don't get this one. You mean I should drop one the parenthesis around
> p, right?

Same as above - s/(p)/p/. It should never be necessary to write
	pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e)
since
	pwm_set_duty_cycle(p, e)
should be the same.

On the other side, I did not see this expression used in any of the patches,
though maybe I missed it.

Thanks,
Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/