[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150429161528.GZ9169@x1>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:15:28 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: "Opensource [Steve Twiss]" <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
DT <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
David Dajun Chen <david.chen@...semi.com>,
INPUT <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V2 1/2] input: misc: da9063: OnKey driver
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote:
>
> On 28 April 2015 12:57 Lee Jones [mailto:lee.jones@...aro.org] wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, S Twiss wrote:
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c | 55 +++++++++
> > > include/linux/mfd/da9063/pdata.h | 1 +
> >
> > This should be a seperate patch.
> >
>
> Okay, done this now. Added a new PATCH 3/3
>
> > > static struct resource da9063_onkey_resources[] = {
> > > {
> > > + .name = "ONKEY",
> > > .start = DA9063_IRQ_ONKEY,
> > > .end = DA9063_IRQ_ONKEY,
> > > .flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
> > > @@ -97,6 +98,7 @@ static const struct mfd_cell da9063_devs[] = {
> > > .name = DA9063_DRVNAME_ONKEY,
> > > .num_resources =
> > ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_onkey_resources),
> > > .resources = da9063_onkey_resources,
> > > + .of_compatible = "dlg,da9063-onkey",
> > > },
> > > {
> > > .name = DA9063_DRVNAME_RTC,
> >
> > This is lowercase, so why does "ONKEY" have to be uppercase?
> >
>
> No real reason why this is uppercase in favour of lowercase except it
> is following the convention of the existing DA9063 driver code.
> Currently the DA9063 uses uppercase for its naming, there are several
> others components that use the same uppercase convention, e.g. the
> RTC alarm and tick interrupt and the hardware LDO limit:
>
> > cat /proc/interrupts | grep 9063
> 384: 0 0 0 0 da9063-irq 0 ONKEY
> 385: 0 2 0 0 da9063-irq 1 ALARM
> 387: 0 30 0 0 da9063-irq 3 HWMON
> 392: 0 0 0 0 da9063-irq 8 LDO_LIM
>
> I was going to leave this uppercase, but I can easily change it if
> this is necessary.
>
> > > if (ret)
> > > dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n");
> > >
> > > +
> >
> > Tut tut!
> >
> > > return ret;
> > > }
>
> I've changed that to remove the lazy fall-through on the error path.
> It now has the following form:
>
> @@ -229,9 +229,10 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned int irq)
> ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs,
> ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs), NULL, da9063->irq_base,
> NULL);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n");
> -
> + return ret;
> + }
>
> return ret;
> }
Sorry, that's not what I meant.
The fall-through is perfectly fine. I was tutting because you added
an unrelated 'clean-up'.
> Thanks for the review comments.
> The next patch set for DA9063 will follow shortly.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists