linux-kernel - [PATCH RFC v3 4/4] mfd: rn5t618: add ADC subdevice for RN5T618

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20200218061725.22420-5-andreas@kemnade.info>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:17:25 +0100
From:   Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To:     knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net,
        lee.jones@...aro.org, b.galvani@...il.com,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, phh@....me, stefan@...er.ch,
        letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org, martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com,
        jic23@...nel.org
Cc:     Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
Subject: [PATCH RFC v3 4/4] mfd: rn5t618: add ADC subdevice for RN5T618

RN5T618 has an ADC but RN5T567 has not, so
we need separate subdevice lists for both.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
---
Untested, IMHO only acceptable with a Tested-By.
Not needed for the RC5T619, feel free to ignore them if the whole series
would be delayed just because of missing Tested-By for this.

 drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
index 6828fd40b0a1..d37d7a31cf26 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
 static const struct mfd_cell rn5t618_cells[] = {
 	{ .name = "rn5t618-regulator" },
 	{ .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
+	{ .name = "rn5t618-adc" },
 };
 
 static const struct mfd_cell rc5t619_cells[] = {
@@ -30,6 +31,11 @@ static const struct mfd_cell rc5t619_cells[] = {
 	{ .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
 };
 
+static const struct mfd_cell rn5t567_cells[] = {
+	{ .name = "rn5t618-regulator" },
+	{ .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
+};
+
 static bool rn5t618_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
 {
 	switch (reg) {
@@ -203,16 +209,32 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	if (priv->variant == RC5T619)
+	switch (priv->variant) {
+	case RC5T619:
 		ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
 					   rc5t619_cells,
 					   ARRAY_SIZE(rc5t619_cells),
 					   NULL, 0, NULL);
-	else
+		break;
+	case RN5T618:
 		ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
 					   rn5t618_cells,
 					   ARRAY_SIZE(rn5t618_cells),
 					   NULL, 0, NULL);
+		break;
+	case RN5T567:
+		ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
+					   rn5t567_cells,
+					   ARRAY_SIZE(rn5t567_cells),
+					   NULL, 0, NULL);
+		break;
+	/*
+	 * Should not happen because we come here only with a valid device
+	 * tree match, so variant contains any of the above.
+	 */
+	default:
+		return -ENOENT;
+	}
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&i2c->dev, "failed to add sub-devices: %d\n", ret);
 		return ret;
-- 
2.20.1