Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Mar 2023 16:02:32 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH INTERNAL v1 3/3] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add driver for TI TPS6594 regulators | From | jerome Neanne <> |
| |
On 24/02/2023 14:42, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 02:31:29PM +0100, Esteban Blanc wrote: >> From: Jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com> >> >> This patch adds support for TPS6594 regulators (bucks and LDOs). >> The output voltages are configurable and are meant to supply power >> to the main processor and other components. >> Bucks can be used in single or multiphase mode, depending on PMIC >> part number. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com> >> --- > > You've not provided a Signed-off-by for this so I can't do anything with > it, please see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for details > on what this is and why it's important. > I did this patch but Esteban sent the whole patch-list. The sign-off has not been updated accordingly. Sorry for disturbance. We'll fix that. >> @@ -0,0 +1,559 @@ >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +/* >> + * Regulator driver for tps6594 PMIC >> + * >> + * Copyright (C) 2022 BayLibre Incorporated - https://www.baylibre.com/ > > Please make the entire comment block a C++ one so things look more > intentional. > >> +static unsigned int tps6594_get_mode(struct regulator_dev *dev) >> +{ >> + return REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL; >> +} > > If configuring modes isn't supported just omit all mode operations. > >> + } >> + >> + regulator_notifier_call_chain(irq_data->rdev, >> + irq_data->type->event, NULL); >> + >> + dev_err(irq_data->dev, "Error IRQ trap %s for %s\n", >> + irq_data->type->event_name, irq_data->type->regulator_name); > > I suspect it might avoid future confusion to log the error before > notifying so that any consequences of the error more clearly happen in > response to the error. > I'll rework all that section for v2 following your recommendations >> +static int tps6594_get_rdev_by_name(const char *regulator_name, >> + struct regulator_dev *rdevbucktbl[BUCK_NB], >> + struct regulator_dev *rdevldotbl[LDO_NB], >> + struct regulator_dev *dev) >> +{ >> + int i; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i <= BUCK_NB; i++) { >> + if (strcmp(regulator_name, buck_regs[i].name) == 0) { >> + dev = rdevbucktbl[i]; >> + return 0; >> + } >> + } >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ldo_regs); i++) { >> + if (strcmp(regulator_name, ldo_regs[i].name) == 0) { >> + dev = rdevldotbl[i]; >> + return 0; >> + } >> + } >> + return -EINVAL; >> +} > >> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tps6594_regulator_irq_types); ++i) { >> + irq_type = &tps6594_regulator_irq_types[i]; >> + >> + irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, irq_type->irq_name); >> + if (irq < 0) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + irq_data[i].dev = tps->dev; >> + irq_data[i].type = irq_type; >> + >> + tps6594_get_rdev_by_name(irq_type->regulator_name, rdevbucktbl, >> + rdevldotbl, rdev); > > This would be simpler and you wouldn't need this lookup function if the > regulator descriptions included their IRQ names, then you could just > request the interrupts while registering the regulators. > >> + error = devm_request_threaded_irq(tps->dev, irq, NULL, >> + tps6594_regulator_irq_handler, >> + IRQF_ONESHOT, >> + irq_type->irq_name, >> + &irq_data[i]); >> + if (error) { >> + dev_err(tps->dev, "failed to request %s IRQ %d: %d\n", >> + irq_type->irq_name, irq, error); >> + return error; >> + } > > This leaks all previously requested interrupts. Thanks for your time and precious feedback.
| |