lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get_enable()
On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300
> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Use devm_regulator_bulk_get_enable() instead of open coded bulk-get,
>> bulk-enable, add-action-to-disable-at-detach - pattern.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>> v2 => v3
>> Split to own patch.
>> ---
>> drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c | 23 +++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c
>> index 28bdde2d3088..fcad3efe62ea 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c
>> @@ -84,7 +84,6 @@ struct ltc2688_chan {
>> struct ltc2688_state {
>> struct spi_device *spi;
>> struct regmap *regmap;
>> - struct regulator_bulk_data regulators[2];
>> struct ltc2688_chan channels[LTC2688_DAC_CHANNELS];
>> struct iio_chan_spec *iio_chan;
>> /* lock to protect against multiple access to the device and shared data */
>> @@ -902,13 +901,6 @@ static int ltc2688_setup(struct ltc2688_state *st, struct regulator *vref)
>> LTC2688_CONFIG_EXT_REF);
>> }
>>
>> -static void ltc2688_disable_regulators(void *data)
>> -{
>> - struct ltc2688_state *st = data;
>> -
>> - regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(st->regulators), st->regulators);
>> -}
>> -
>> static void ltc2688_disable_regulator(void *regulator)
>> {
>> regulator_disable(regulator);
>> @@ -970,6 +962,7 @@ static int ltc2688_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>> struct regulator *vref_reg;
>> struct device *dev = &spi->dev;
>> int ret;
>> + static const char * const regulators[] = {"vcc", "iovcc"};
> trivial - slight preference for
> { "vcc", "iovcc" };
>
> This isn't as important as for numeric values as we get some readability
> from the quotes but still nice to have.

Right. I'll fix it.

> For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not
> to have the static marking but I don't care that much.
>

I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array
does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit
of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of
how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know
this myself until Sebastian educated me :) Hence my strong preference
on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as
I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy
way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many
of arrays - or when they contain large data.

Yours
-- Matti

--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-20 15:39    [W:0.112 / U:0.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site