[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <401c5e7b-ff33-44e8-98a5-8cc6af4f2a87@collabora.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:03:57 +0100
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: jic23@...nel.org, dlechner@...libre.com, nuno.sa@...log.com,
andy@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
srini@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org, neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
sre@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, krzk@...nel.org,
dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com, quic_wcheng@...cinc.com,
melody.olvera@....qualcomm.com, quic_nsekar@...cinc.com,
ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@...il.com, abelvesa@...nel.org, luca.weiss@...rphone.com,
konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com, mitltlatltl@...il.com,
krishna.kurapati@....qualcomm.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/10] nvmem: qcom-spmi-sdam: Migrate to
devm_spmi_subdevice_alloc_and_add()
Il 14/01/26 10:00, Andy Shevchenko ha scritto:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 09:59:40AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 14/01/26 09:56, Andy Shevchenko ha scritto:
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 09:39:52AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>> Some Qualcomm PMICs integrate a SDAM device, internally located in
>>>> a specific address range reachable through SPMI communication.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of using the parent SPMI device (the main PMIC) as a kind
>>>> of syscon in this driver, register a new SPMI sub-device for SDAM
>>>> and initialize its own regmap with this sub-device's specific base
>>>> address, retrieved from the devicetree.
>>>>
>>>> This allows to stop manually adding the register base address to
>>>> every R/W call in this driver, as this can be, and is now, handled
>>>> by the regmap API instead.
>
> ...
>
>>>> + struct regmap_config sdam_regmap_config = {
>>>> + .reg_bits = 16,
>>>> + .val_bits = 8,
>>>
>>>> + .max_register = 0x100,
>>>
>>> Are you sure? This might be a bad naming, but here max == the last accessible.
>>> I bet it has to be 0xff (but since the address is 16-bit it might be actually
>>> 257 registers, but sounds very weird).
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure.
>
> So, what is resided on address 0x100 ?
>
I don't remember, this is research from around 5 months ago, when I've sent
the v1 of this.
If you really want though, I can incorrectly set max_register to 0xff.
Cheers,
Angelo
>>>> + .fast_io = true,
>>>> + };
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists