[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdXSdhNtPwNdpssnmt+sZb+ZoAUm-cKJu-PqymmHMOpRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:28:51 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Yauhen Kharuzhy <jekhor@...il.com>,
Tsuchiya Yuto <kitakar@...il.com>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/20] extcon: intel-cht-wc: Support devs with Micro-B
/ USB-2 only Type-C connectors
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 7:04 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> So far the extcon-intel-cht-wc code has only been tested on devices with
> a Type-C connector with USB-PD, USB3 (superspeed) and DP-altmode support
> through a FUSB302 Type-C controller.
>
> Some devices with the intel-cht-wc PMIC however come with an USB-micro-B
> connector, or an USB-2 only Type-C connector without USB-PD.
>
> Which device-model we are running on can be identified with the new
> intel_cht_wc_get_model() helper and on models without a Type-C controller
> the extcon code must control the Vbus 5V boost converter and the USB role
> switch depending on the detected cable-type.
...
> config EXTCON_INTEL_CHT_WC
> tristate "Intel Cherrytrail Whiskey Cove PMIC extcon driver"
> - depends on INTEL_SOC_PMIC_CHTWC
> + depends on INTEL_SOC_PMIC_CHTWC && USB_SUPPORT
Having these two in one expression sounds a bit alogical to me, can
you just add a separate "depends on"?
> + select USB_ROLE_SWITCH
...
> + if (ext->vbus_boost && ext->vbus_boost_enabled != enable) {
> + if (enable)
> + ret = regulator_enable(ext->vbus_boost);
> + else
> + ret = regulator_disable(ext->vbus_boost);
Redundant blank line here (but it's up to you)
> + if (ret == 0)
> + ext->vbus_boost_enabled = enable;
> + else
> + dev_err(ext->dev, "Error updating Vbus boost regulator: %d\n", ret);
Why not a traditional pattern, i.e. error handling first?
> + }
...
> +/* Some boards require controlling the role-sw and vbus based on the id-pin */
Vbus ? VBUS? Here and there the inconsistency of some terms...
...
> + ext->vbus_boost = devm_regulator_get_optional(ext->dev, "vbus");
> + if (IS_ERR(ext->vbus_boost)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(ext->vbus_boost);
> + if (ret == -ENODEV)
> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +
> + return dev_err_probe(ext->dev, ret, "getting vbus regulator");
Can be also written as
if (PTR_ERR(ext->vbus_boost) == -ENODEV ||
PTR_ERR(ext->vbus_boost) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
return dev_err_probe(ext->dev, -EPROBE_DEFER, "getting vbus regulator");
return PTR_ERR(ext->vbus_boost);
but up to you.
> + }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists