Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] extcon: mrfld: Introduce extcon driver for Basin Cove PMIC | From | Chanwoo Choi <> | Date | Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:45:08 +0900 |
| |
Hi Andy,
On 19. 3. 18. 오후 9:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 07:38:26PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > >> Thanks for comment. I add my comments >> and then you have to rebase it on latest v5.0-rc1 >> because the merge conflict happen on v5.0-rc1. > > Thanks for review, see my answers below. > Non-answered items will be fixed accordingly. > >>>> +config EXTCON_INTEL_MRFLD >>> >>>> + tristate "Intel MErrifield Basin Cove PMIC extcon driver" >>> >>> ME -> Me (will be fixed) >>> >>>> + depends on INTEL_SOC_PMIC_MRFLD >> >> This driver uses the regmap interface. So, you better to add >> following dependency? > >> - select REGMAP_I2C or REGMAP_SPI > > None of them fits this or MFD driver. See below. > >> But, if 'INTEL_SOC_PMIC_MRFLE' selects already REGMAP_* >> configuration. It is not necessary. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190318095316.69278-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/ > > It selects REGMAP_IRQ which selects necessary bits from regmap API.
OK.
> >>>> + help >>>> + Say Y here to enable extcon support for charger detection / control >>>> + on the Intel Merrifiel Basin Cove PMIC. >> >> What is correct word? >> - Merrifield? is used on above >> - Merrifiel? > > Merrifield is a correct one. Thanks for spotting this. > >>>> +static int mrfld_extcon_set(struct mrfld_extcon_data *data, unsigned int reg, >>>> + unsigned int mask) >>>> +{ >>>> + return regmap_update_bits(data->regmap, reg, mask, 0xff); >>>> +} >> >> mrfld_extcon_clear() and mrfld_extcon_set() are just wrapper function >> for regmap interface. I think that you better to define >> the meaningful defintion for '0x00' and '0xff' as following: >> >> (just example, you may make the more correct name) >> #define INTEL_MRFLD_RESET 0x00 >> #define INTEL_MRFLD_SET 0xff > > It makes a little sense here, the idea is to reduce parameters. > > I could ideally write > (..., mask, ~mask) for clear > and > (..., mask, mask) for set > >> And then you better to use the 'regmap_update_bits()' function >> directly instead of mrfld_extcon_clear/set'. > > It will bring duplication of long definitions and reduce readability of the > code.
Actually, it is not critical issue. If you don't agree my comments, you keep your style on next version. I have no any strong objection.
> >>>> + /* >>>> + * It seems SCU firmware clears the content of BCOVE_CHGRIRQ1 >>>> + * and makes it useless for OS. Instead we compare a previously >>>> + * stored status to the current one, provided by BCOVE_SCHGRIRQ1. >>>> + */ >>>> + ret = regmap_read(regmap, BCOVE_SCHGRIRQ1, &status); >>>> + if (ret) >>>> + return ret; >>>> + >>>> + if (!(status ^ data->status)) >>>> + return -ENODATA; >>>> + >>>> + if ((status ^ data->status) & BCOVE_CHGRIRQ_USBIDDET) >>>> + ret = mrfld_extcon_role_detect(data); >> This line gets the return value from mrfld_extcon_role_detect(data) >> without any error handling and then the below line just saves 'status' >> to 'data->status' regardless of 'ret' value. >> >> I think that you have to handle the error case of >> 'ret = mrfld_extcon_role_detect(data)'. > > I'm not sure of the consequences of such change. > I will give it some tests, and then will proceed accordingly.
OK. Thanks.
> >>>> + .name = KBUILD_MODNAME, >> >> Where is the definition of KBUILD_MODNAME? Are you missing? > > In the Makefile. > Nothing is missed here. > > But I could put its content explicitly here.
OK. Thanks.
>
-- Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi Samsung Electronics
| |