Messages in this thread | | | From | Gene Chen <> | Date | Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:53:36 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: mt6360: Fix flow which is used to check ic exist |
| |
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> 於 2020年7月10日 週五 下午10:25寫道: > > > > On 07/07/2020 12:30, Gene Chen wrote: > > From: Gene Chen <gene_chen@richtek.com> > > > > Fix flow which is used to check ic exist > > > > Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <gene_chen@richtek.com> > > --- > > drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++--------- > > include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h | 8 ++++---- > > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c > > index 2dd5918..4bb2949 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c > > @@ -293,6 +293,23 @@ static const struct mfd_cell mt6360_devs[] = { > > NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-tcpc"), > > }; > > > > +static int mt6360_check_vendor_info(struct mt6360_data *data) > > +{ > > + u32 info; > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MT6360_REG_PMU_DEVINFO, &info); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + return ret; > > + > > + if ((info & MT6360_CHIPVEN_MASK) != MT6360_CHIPVEN_VAL) > > + return -ENODEV; > > + > > + data->chip_rev = info & MT6360_CHIPREV_MASK; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = { > > MT6360_PMU_SLAVEID, > > MT6360_PMIC_SLAVEID, > > @@ -303,7 +320,6 @@ static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = { > > static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client) > > { > > struct mt6360_data *data; > > - unsigned int reg_data; > > int i, ret; > > > > data = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL); > > @@ -319,16 +335,10 @@ static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client) > > return PTR_ERR(data->regmap); > > } > > > > - ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MT6360_PMU_DEV_INFO, ®_data); > > + ret = mt6360_check_vendor_info(data); > > if (ret) { > > - dev_err(&client->dev, "Device not found\n"); > > - return ret; > > - } > > - > > - data->chip_rev = reg_data & CHIP_REV_MASK; > > - if (data->chip_rev != CHIP_VEN_MT6360) { > > Why not only applying the MASK here instead of put this all in a new function? >
I think merge the ic check flow into function is well-organized. if not, i can restore the same as before.
> > dev_err(&client->dev, "Device not supported\n"); > > - return -ENODEV; > > + return ret; > > } > > > > ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&client->dev, data->regmap, client->irq, > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h > > index 9fc6718..5ec0f5d 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h > > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct mt6360_data { > > }; > > > > /* PMU register defininition */ > > -#define MT6360_PMU_DEV_INFO (0x00) > > +#define MT6360_REG_PMU_DEVINFO (0x00) > > #define MT6360_PMU_CORE_CTRL1 (0x01) > > #define MT6360_PMU_RST1 (0x02) > > #define MT6360_PMU_CRCEN (0x03) > > @@ -233,8 +233,8 @@ struct mt6360_data { > > #define MT6360_IRQ_REGNUM 16 > > #define MT6360_IRQ_RETRIG BIT(2) > > > > -#define CHIP_VEN_MASK (0xF0) > > -#define CHIP_VEN_MT6360 (0x50) > > -#define CHIP_REV_MASK (0x0F) > > +#define MT6360_CHIPVEN_MASK (0xF0) > > +#define MT6360_CHIPVEN_VAL (0x50) > > +#define MT6360_CHIPREV_MASK (0x0F) > > Same here as in the other patches. Don't just rename defines if there is no good > reason. >
Is easy to read a good reason to rename it? if not, i can restore the same as before.
> Regards, > Matthias > > > > > #endif /* __MT6360_H__ */ > >
| |