On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:55:33 -0800
Guenter Roeck [off-list ref] wrote:

On 11/16/2015 05:55 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

Hi Krzysztof,

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:10:40 +0900
Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

W dniu 16.11.2015 o 17:56, Boris Brezillon pisze:

quoted

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 <redacted>
---
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))
|
-(p)->period = e;
+pwm_set_period((p), e);
|
-(p)->period
+pwm_get_period((p))
|
-(p)->duty_cycle = e;
+pwm_set_duty_cycle((p), e);
|
-(p)->duty_cycle
+pwm_get_duty_cycle((p))
)
--->8---
---
  drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c | 7 ++++---
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
index 6d96bff..a038fb3 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/max77693-haptic.c

@@ -70,10 +70,11 @@ struct max77693_haptic {

  static int max77693_haptic_set_duty_cycle(struct max77693_haptic *haptic)
  {
-	int delta = (haptic->pwm_dev->period + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;
+	int delta = (pwm_get_period((haptic->pwm_dev)) + haptic->pwm_duty) / 2;

Double parentheses over argument are not needed so just:
pwm_get_period(haptic->pwm_dev) + ...

Actually it was generated with coccinelle, hence I didn't fix existing
coding style issues, but I have no problem fixing them.

There was no existing coding style issue. Your coccinelle script introduces it.
You might want to consider updating your script and remove the unnecessary (( ))
from it.

My bad, you are right: my script is buggy. I'll fix that.

Thanks,

Boris


-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com