Hello Mark, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:27 PM > To: Suzuki, Katsuhiro <suzuki.katsuhiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Masami Hiramatsu > <masami.hiramatsu@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: support ROHM BD28623 codec > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:33:11PM +0900, Katsuhiro Suzuki wrote: > > > +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/bd28623.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,258 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +/* > > + * ROHM BD28623MUV class D speaker amplifier codec driver. > > + * > > Please make the entire comment C++ so this looks intentional. > > > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable supplies: %d\n", ret); > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + gpiod_set_value(bd->reset_gpio, 0); > > Since this GPIO is not needed in atomic contexts you should use the > _cansleep() versions of the GPIO functions - it doesn't cost you > anything and means that if for some reason someone wired this up to a > GPIO that can't be used in atomic context the driver will just work. > Thank you, I'll fix it. > > + bd->reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset", > > + GPIOD_OUT_HIGH); > > > + bd->mute_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "mute", > > + GPIOD_OUT_HIGH); > > These properties were documented as mandatory in the binding but are > optional here. It's fine that they're optional but I'd expect the > binding to be consistent with this. > These GPIO is optional if board vendor connects directly RSTX and MUTEX pins to VCC. So I think I should fix DT-bindings document. > > +static int bd28623_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > + struct bd28623_priv *bd = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > + > > + regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(bd->supplies), bd->supplies); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > We don't enable the supplies explicitly as part of the probe function so > it feels wrong to disable on remove() - I'm sure it is fine in practice > as-is but I'd have to think too hard to confirm that. I'd put this in a > component level remove function instead so that it's consistent. Ah, indeed. I will use component driver's remove() function instead of platform. Thank you for review! Regards, -- Katsuhiro Suzuki -- 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
