> > +struct rt1318_init_reg {
> > + u32 reg;
> > + u8 val;
> > + u8 delay;
> > +};
>
> That looks like a 'struct reg_sequence' ?
>
> > +static struct rt1318_init_reg init_list[] = {
> > + { 0x0000C000, 0x01, 0},
> > + { 0x0000F20D, 0x00, 0},
> > + { 0x0000F212, 0x3E, 0},
>
> ...
>
> > +
> > +static int rt1318_reg_init(struct snd_soc_component *component) {
> > + struct rt1318_priv *rt1318 =
> snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < rt1318_INIT_REG_LEN; i++) {
> > + regmap_write(rt1318->regmap, init_list[i].reg,
> init_list[i].val);
> > + mdelay(init_list[i].delay);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct reg_default rt1318_reg[] = {
> > + { 0xc000, 0x00 },
> > + { 0xc001, 0x43 },
> > + { 0xc003, 0x22 },
> > + { 0xc004, 0x44 },
>
> ...
>
> > + { 0xf20d, 0x00 },
> > + { 0xf212, 0x00 },
> > + { 0xf21a, 0x00 },
> > + { 0xf223, 0x40 },
>
> And this looks to me as as a set of defaults patches by a reg_sequence - similar
> to what is done for rt1308 and rt1316.
>
> Is there any opportunity to use regmap_register_patch() instead of
> open-coding the loop?
OK, I'll include this modification in the v2 patch, thanks.
