[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141013131622.GA27755@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:16:22 +0200
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, heiko@...ech.de,
sameo@...ux.intel.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
grant.likely@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org, sre@...nel.org,
dbaryshkov@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, anton@...msg.org,
ldewangan@...dia.com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] regulator: act8865: Add support to turn off
all outputs
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:45:02PM +0000, Romain Perier wrote:
> When the property "poweroff-source" is found in the
> devicetree, the function pm_power_off is defined. This function sends the
> rights bit fields to the global off control register. shutdown/poweroff
> commands are now supported for hardware components which use these PMU.
Reviwed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
but...
> + if (dev->of_node && is_system_poweroff_source(dev->of_node) &&
> + !pm_power_off) {
> + act8865_i2c_client = client;
> + act8865->off_reg = off_reg;
> + act8865->off_mask = off_mask;
> + pm_power_off = act8865_power_off;
> + }
Perhaps worth wrapping the dev->of_node check into the function? I
imagine the same pattern will be quite common.
Might also make sense to warn if we've got the property but we're not
setting pm_power_off - it's indicating that things aren't working as
expected, an error will help users figure out what's going wrong.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists