On Monday 01 February 2016 02:29 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Thanks Lee for review.
I will take care of most of stuff on next version of patch.
However, I have some query form your comment.
On Friday 29 January 2016 02:36 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
+ }
+
+#define MAX20024_SUB_MODULE_NO_RES(_name, _id) \
+ [_id] = { \
+ .name = "max20024-"#_name, \
+ .id = _id, \
+ }
I don't want people hand-rolling this stuff. If it's useful to you,
it's useful to others, so great a generic implementation that lives in
the kernel headers directory.
yaah, generic implementation possible. I can put the new defines in
the mfd/core.h.
This will be similar to
+/* Define mfd cells with name and resource */
+#define DEFINE_MFD_CELL_NAME_RESOURCE(_name, _res) \
+ { \
+ .name = (_name), \
+ .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE((res)), \
+ .resources = (_res), \
+ }
+
+/* Define mfd cells with name */
+#define DEFINE_MFD_CELL_NAME(_name) \
+ { \
+ .name = (_name), \
+ }
+
This will be separate patch and should be applied before this series.
Does it look fine?
Hmm... Actually, I have my own ideas of how this should look. How do
you feel about me submitting my own patch. I'll keep you on Cc, so
you can review and make use of it in your set.
Sure, I am fine with this. Please send the patch and CC me so that I can
make my patch on top of it and void my mfd/core.h patch.
Thanks for taking care.
+static const struct i2c_device_id max77620_id[] = {
+ {"max77620", MAX77620},
+ {"max20024", MAX20024},
+ {},
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max77620_id);
+
+static const struct of_device_id max77620_of_match[] = {
+ {
+ .compatible = "maxim,max77620",
+ .data = &max77620_cells,
+ }, {
+ .compatible = "maxim,max20024",
+ .data = &max20024_cells,
+ }, {
+ },
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77620_of_match);
This is not acceptable. EITHER use DT OR MFD methods of registering
devices, do not mix the two.
You mean I need to either provide the i2c_device_id table or the
of_device_id table, not both?
Do I need to protect it by CONFIG_OF?
This only support the DT method of registration. So do I need to
remove i2c_device_id?
No, I mean I don't want you providing platform data via an MFD cell
and passing it through the OF .data attribute.
This is not platform data, this is chip specific data.
However, In patch V7, I removed this and use the id_table for the chip
data to optimized the chip ID.
This is not required.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
