lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] regulator: mt6360: Add support for MT6360 regulator
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> 於 2020年6月4日 週四 下午9:39寫道:
>
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 03:06:27PM +0800, Gene Chen wrote:
>
> This looks nice and simple, a few fairly small comments below but high
> level it's basically fine.
>
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/regulator/mt6360-regulator.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,571 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2020 MediaTek Inc.
>
> Please make the entire comment a C++ one so things look more
> intentional.
>

ACK

> > + for (i = 0; i < devdata->num_irq_descs; i++) {
> > + irq_desc = devdata->irq_descs + i;
> > + if (unlikely(!irq_desc->name))
> > + continue;
>
> Do we really need an unlikely here? This shouldn't be a hot path.
>
> > +static int mt6360_regulator_set_mode(
> > + struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned int mode)
> > +{
>
> > + switch (1 << (ffs(mode) - 1)) {
> > + case REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL:
>
> I don't understand why this isn't just a straight switch on mode?
>

ACK, we will fix it

> > +static unsigned int mt6360_regulator_get_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> > +{
> > + const struct mt6360_regulator_desc *desc =
> > + (const struct mt6360_regulator_desc *)rdev->desc;
> > + int shift = ffs(desc->mode_get_mask) - 1, ret;
> > + unsigned int val = 0;
> > +
> > + default:
> > + ret = 0;
> > + }
>
> If we can't parse a valid value from the hardware then that's an error.
>

ACK

> > +static int mt6360_regulator_reg_write(void *context,
> > + unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
> > +{
> > + struct mt6360_regulator_data *mrd = context;
> > + u8 chunk[4] = {0};
> > +
> > + /* chunk 0 ->i2c addr, 1 -> reg_addr, 2 -> reg_val 3-> crc8 */
> > + chunk[0] = (mrd->i2c->addr & 0x7f) << 1;
> > + chunk[1] = reg & 0x3f;
> > + chunk[2] = (u8)val;
> > + chunk[3] = crc8(mrd->crc8_table, chunk, 3, 0);
> > + /* also dummy one byte */
> > + return i2c_smbus_write_i2c_block_data(mrd->i2c, chunk[1], 3, chunk + 2);
> > +}
>
> Oh, wow - that's a fun I/O interface!
>

MT6360 PMIC/LDO part use CRC to avoid i2c write mistaken

> > +static const struct of_device_id __maybe_unused mt6360_regulator_of_id[] = {
> > + {
> > + .compatible = "mediatek,mt6360_pmic",
> > + .data = (void *)&mt6360_pmic_devdata,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + .compatible = "mediatek,mt6360_ldo",
> > + .data = (void *)&mt6360_ldo_devdata,
> > + },
> > + {},
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6360_regulator_of_id);
>
> I don't see any DT bindings documentation for this, documentation is
> required for all new bindings.
>

ACK, we will update binding document

> > + mrd->regmap = devm_regmap_init(&(mrd->i2c->dev),
> > + NULL, mrd, devdata->regmap_config);
> > + if (IS_ERR(mrd->regmap)) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register regmap\n");
> > + return PTR_ERR(mrd->regmap);
> > + }
>
> This looks like a MFD so it's surprising to see us defining a regmap at
> this level. Why are we doing this?

because other sub-device (e.g. CHARGER/LED/ADC) no need CRC when i2c R/W
we will merge remgap into mfd, and use "bank" strategy to distinguish
different part

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-18 13:36    [W:0.096 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site