[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1507779897.21840.19.camel@mtkswgap22>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:44:57 +0800
From: Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>
To: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
CC: <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
<lgirdwood@...il.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
<jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>, <henryc.chen@...iatek.com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
<chen.zhong@...iatek.com>, <chenglin.xu@...iatek.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add MediaTek MT6380 as one
slave of pwrap
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 12:02 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>
> On 08/15/2017 11:09 AM, sean.wang@...iatek.com wrote:
> > From: Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>
> >
> > Add MediaTek MT6380 regulator becoming one of PMIC wrapper slave
> > and also add extra new regmap_config of 32-bit mode for MT6380
> > since old regmap_config of 16-bit mode can't be fit into the need.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chenglin Xu <chenglin.xu@...iatek.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Zhong <chen.zhong@...iatek.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> > index 1f8b69a..047e3d9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> > @@ -501,6 +501,7 @@ struct pmic_wrapper;
> > struct pwrap_slv_type {
> > const u32 *dew_regs;
> > enum pmic_type type;
> > + const struct regmap_config *regmap;
> > /* pwrap operations are highly associated with the PMIC types,
> > * so the pointers added increases flexibility allowing determination
> > * which type is used by the detection through device tree.
> > @@ -1109,7 +1110,7 @@ static irqreturn_t pwrap_interrupt(int irqno, void *dev_id)
> > return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > }
> >
> > -static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config = {
> > +static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config16 = {
> > .reg_bits = 16,
> > .val_bits = 16,
> > .reg_stride = 2,
> > @@ -1118,9 +1119,19 @@ static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config = {
> > .max_register = 0xffff,
> > };
> >
> > +static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config32 = {
> > + .reg_bits = 32,
> > + .val_bits = 32,
> > + .reg_stride = 4,
> > + .reg_read = pwrap_regmap_read,
> > + .reg_write = pwrap_regmap_write,
> > + .max_register = 0xffff,
> > +};
> > +
> > static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6323 = {
> > .dew_regs = mt6323_regs,
> > .type = PMIC_MT6323,
> > + .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config16,
> > .pwrap_read = pwrap_read16,
> > .pwrap_write = pwrap_write16,
> > };
> > @@ -1128,6 +1139,7 @@ static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6323 = {
> > static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6380 = {
> > .dew_regs = NULL,
> > .type = PMIC_MT6380,
> > + .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config32,
> > .pwrap_read = pwrap_read32,
> > .pwrap_write = pwrap_write32,
> > };
> > @@ -1135,6 +1147,7 @@ static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6380 = {
> > static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6397 = {
> > .dew_regs = mt6397_regs,
> > .type = PMIC_MT6397,
> > + .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config16,
> > .pwrap_read = pwrap_read16,
> > .pwrap_write = pwrap_write16,
> > };
> > @@ -1144,9 +1157,15 @@ static const struct of_device_id of_slave_match_tbl[] = {
> > .compatible = "mediatek,mt6323",
> > .data = &pmic_mt6323,
> > }, {
> > + /* The MT6380 slave device is directly pointed to the regulator
> > + * device which is different from the cases MT6323 and MT6397
> > + * where they're one kind of MFDs.
> > + */
> > + .compatible = "mediatek,mt6380-regulator",
> > + .data = &pmic_mt6380,
>
> I understand that mt6380 only provides a regulator and no other function other
> PMICs provide, right?
> Then maybe write a comment like:
> The MT6380 PMIC only implements a regulator, so we bind it directly instead of
> using a MFD. If so, we should state that in the pwrap bindings document, I think.
>
You're right. It is worth making them better in both comments and the
bindings document. I'll do it in the next version.
> Regards,
> Matthias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists