[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161027110337.GJ25322@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:03:37 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Eric Jeong <eric.jeong.opensource@...semi.com>
Cc: LINUX-KERNEL <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
DEVICETREE <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
LINUX-GPIO <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/4] regulator: pv88080: Update Regulator driver for
MFD support
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:03:14AM +0900, Eric Jeong wrote:
> config REGULATOR_PV88080
> - tristate "Powerventure Semiconductor PV88080 regulator"
> - depends on I2C
> - select REGMAP_I2C
> + bool "Powerventure Semiconductor PV88080 regulator"
> + depends on MFD_PV88080
Forcing the driver to be built in looks like a regression, why would we
want to do that?
> + irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "regulator-irq");
> + if (irq < 0) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get IRQ.\n");
> + return irq;
> }
What's the _byname() adding here given that the name is so generic? It
feels like if the name ever becomes important then this particular name
is going to be a problem.
> -module_i2c_driver(pv88080_regulator_driver);
> +static int __init pv88080_regulator_init(void)
> +{
> + return platform_driver_register(&pv88080_regulator_driver);
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(pv88080_regulator_init);
Why are you converting this to subsys_initcall()? This looks like
another regression.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists