lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/4] mfd: tps65917: Add driver for the TPS65917 PMIC
On Friday 23 May 2014 03:36 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> The TPS65917 chip is a power management IC for Portable Navigation Systems
>>>>>> and Tablet Computing devices. It contains the following components:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Regulators.
>>>>>> - Over Temperature warning and Shut down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch adds support for tps65917 mfd device. At this time only
>>>>>> the regulator functionality is made available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v3 Changes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Header file formating
>>>>>> * Changed the cache_type to REGCACHE_RBTREE
>>>>>> * removed unnecessary code
>>>>>> * Corrected documentation style
>>>>>> * Added pm_power_off function
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2 Changes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Added volatile register check as some of the registers
>>>>>> in the set are volatile.
>>>>>> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 12 +
>>>>>> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>>> drivers/mfd/tps65917.c | 594 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> include/linux/mfd/tps65917.h | 1485 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 2092 insertions(+)
>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/tps65917.c
>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/tps65917.h
> [...]
>
>>>>>> + ret = regmap_read(tps65917->regmap[slave], addr, &reg);
>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>> + goto err_irq;
>>>>>> + }i
>>>>> What does the read do? You're not doing anything with the value.
>>>> This pad1 and pad2 stuff is not needed. I will remove this.
>>> Then why is it in here?
>>>
>>> Did you copy this code from somewhere, if so, where?
>>>
>>> Okay, I just answered my own question. There is so much common code
>>> in between this and palmas, there is no way I'm going to accept this
>>> driver. Please merge it in with the palmas driver!
>>>
>> The chip is more like a subset of palmas with lot of register offset changes
>> and register bit field changes. Adding this would make it clumsy.
>> There could
>> be lot of checks. That is why i chose to write a new driver.
>>
>> Palmas driver already supports palmas variants and tps659038. Merging
>> this would mean more and more checks :-/.
> Then find an elegant way of representing the variants. I'm not
> prepared to carry that much duplicated code in MFD. It's already
> overladened and in need of an overhaul. This will exacerbate the
> matter.
>

Okay. I am working on that.

Regards,
Keerthy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-23 13:41    [W:0.069 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site