On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:

On 2021-11-12 12:12:38, Daniel Thompson wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 01:26:58AM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:

quoted

The length of qcom,enabled-strings as property array is enough to
determine the number of strings to be enabled, without needing to set
qcom,num-strings to override the default number of strings when less
than the default (which is also the maxium) is provided in DT.

Fixes: 775d2ffb4af6 ("backlight: qcom-wled: Restructure the driver for WLED3")
Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <redacted>
---
 drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c b/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c
index c5232478a343..9bfbf601762a 100644
--- a/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c
+++ b/drivers/video/backlight/qcom-wled.c

@@ -1518,6 +1518,8 @@ static int wled_configure(struct wled *wled)
 				return -EINVAL;
 			}
 		}
+
+		cfg->num_strings = string_len;

I still don't really understand why this wants to be a separate patch.

I'm viewing this as a separate issue, and this makes it easier to
document the change in a loose commit.

quoted

The warning text emitted by the previous patch (whatever text we agree
on) will be nonsense until this patch is applied.

If this patch cannot appear before the warning is introduces then there
is no correct order for patches 4 and 5 (which implies they should be the
same patch).

Agreed, this is a weird way of doing things in v2 - the error message is
printed yet the length of qcom,enabled-strings is always ignored before
this patch.

If we were to reorder patch 5 before patch 4 that should also
temporarily move `cfg->num_strings = cfg->num_strings + 1;` right below
this `if` so that `qcom,num-strings` remains the definitive way to
set/override length.  That's doable, and makes it easier to read patch 4
as that bit of code will be replaced by of_property_read_u32 on that
exact line.  Let me know which method you prefer.

Personally I would just squash them together. There are no redundant
values in the DT that could be fixed until we can use the string_len
to set num_strings.

However I won't object to the other approach providing the result is
bisectable.


Daniel.