[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160105154431.GB6588@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:44:31 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Chen Feng <puck.chen@...ilicon.com>
Cc: lee.jones@...aro.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yudongbin@...ilicon.com,
saberlily.xia@...ilicon.com, suzhuangluan@...ilicon.com,
kong.kongxinwei@...ilicon.com, xuyiping@...ilicon.com,
z.liuxinliang@...ilicon.com, puck.chenfeng@...il.com,
weidong2@...ilicon.com, w.f@...wei.com, qijiwen@...ilicon.com,
peter.panshilin@...ilicon.com, dan.zhao@...ilicon.com,
linuxarm@...wei.com, liguozhu@...ilicon.com,
shimingxing@...ilicon.com, albert.lubing@...ilicon.com,
oliver.fu@...ilicon.com, haojian.zhuang@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] regulator: add regulator driver of hi655x pmic
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:27:51PM +0800, Chen Feng wrote:
> +/*LDO 2 & LDO 14*/
Please use the normal kernel coding style for comments, I'm surprised
checkpatch didn't warn you about this.
> +static const unsigned int ldo2_voltages[] = {
> + 2500000, 2600000, 2700000, 2800000,
> + 2900000, 3000000, 3100000, 3200000,
This looks like a linear range from 2.5V in steps of 100mV? A linear
range is better than a table since values can be mapped directly without
having to scan a table.
> +/*LDO7 & LDO10*/
> +static const unsigned int ldo7_voltages[] = {
> + 1800000, 1850000, 2850000, 2900000,
> + 3000000, 3100000, 3200000, 3300000,
This is the sort of thing a voltage table is for where the voltages
aren't evenly spaced and don't map onto a formula.
> +static const struct of_device_id of_hi655x_regulator_match_tbl[] = {
> + {
> + .compatible = "hisilicon,hi655x-regulator",
> + },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_hi655x_regulator_match_tbl);
A couple of problems here. One is that the compatible strings should be
for specific devices, not use a wildcard. The other is that since this
is part of a PMIC and we already have a compatible string for the PMIC
so this is really just a set of properties for that device rather than a
totally separate device - we're not achieving any real reuse over
multiple devices or anything.
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(regulators); i++) {
> + if (!of_node_cmp(np->name, regulators[i].rdesc.name))
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(regulators)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "error regulator %s int dts\n", np->name);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + regulator = ®ulators[i];
> + init_data = of_get_regulator_init_data(dev, np,
> + ®ulator->rdesc);
> + if (!init_data)
> + return -EINVAL;
Don't open code this, use the standard support with of_match and
regulators_node.
> + config.dev = dev;
> + config.init_data = init_data;
> + config.driver_data = regulator;
> + config.regmap = pmic->regmap;
> + config.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + rdev = devm_regulator_register(dev, ®ulator->rdesc,
> + &config);
> + if (IS_ERR(rdev))
> + return PTR_ERR(rdev);
Though this looks like it's trying to have a device per regulator which
is an unusual pattern and if we are doing that then relying on the node
name to figure out which device this is a bit broken.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists