On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:56:05PM +0800, Sean Wang wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 19:22 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > + return (regval & info->desc.enable_mask) ? > > > + REGULATOR_STATUS_ON : REGULATOR_STATUS_OFF; > > This isn't really a get_status() operation - it's just showing the > > status of the enable we set. The get_status() operation is for hardware > > that has a mechanism for reading back the current physical status of the > > regulator, usually including things like if it's in regulation or not. > > Also please write normal conditional statements, it helps people read > > the code. > for the hardware, the way for reflect the current physical physical > has to depend on the bit reading as the bit we enable. It indeed tends > to confuse other users and developers, we maybe can add some comments > for this to avoid. It's OK to just not have a get_status() operation - a lot of regulators just can't do this and that's fine, the subsystem will cope. > > > +static const struct of_device_id mt6380_of_match[] = { > > > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6380-regulator", }, > > > + { /* sentinel */ }, > > > +}; > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6380_of_match); > > Given that this driver is entirely specific to the parent PMIC there > > should be no need for a separate compatible string, it's redundant. > the parent of pmic is MediaTek pwrap which is possibly being used with > various pmics such as MT6323, MT6797, MT6380 and so on. So extra > matching we thought is required to identify which pmic is actually being > connected. > For those opinions, maybe we didn't get your exact point. If something > is wrong, please kindly guide us to the right place. It sounds like pwrap should be a bus rather than using a platform device here? But I guess that's how things are for now so OK.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature