[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191216170000.022a4c31@kemnade.info>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:00:00 +0100
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
stefan@...er.ch, b.galvani@...il.com, phh@....me,
letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mfd: rn5t618: add more subdevices
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:31:06 +0000
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>
> > The RC5T619 has a RTC which is missing in the
> > RN5T618. Add it as subdevice to prepare for their implementation
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > - alignment cleanup
> > drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > index d78eb29b94a4..18d56a732b20 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ static const struct mfd_cell rn5t618_cells[] = {
> > { .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
> > };
> >
> > +static const struct mfd_cell rc5t619_cells[] = {
> > + { .name = "rn5t618-regulator" },
> > + { .name = "rc5t619-rtc" },
> > + { .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
> > +};
> > +
> > static bool rn5t618_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> > {
> > switch (reg) {
> > @@ -173,8 +179,14 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rn5t618_cells,
> > - ARRAY_SIZE(rn5t618_cells), NULL, 0, NULL);
> > + if (priv->variant == RC5T619)
> > + ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rc5t619_cells,
>
> Ref: The "-1", please use this as an opportunity to use the defines.
>
> > + ARRAY_SIZE(rc5t619_cells),
> > + NULL, 0, NULL);
> > + else
>
> Are you sure it's not possible for 'variant' to be an unsupported
> device?
>
Well, does it change the behavior for devices other than the rc5t619?
I do not think so. If the mfd driver is bound to unsupported devices,
rn5t618_of_match is wrong.
Or do you want separate cell arrays for each of the three variant now to
ease future extensions?
Regards,
Andreas
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists