On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:31:06 +0000
Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>
> > The RC5T619 has a RTC which is missing in the
> > RN5T618. Add it as subdevice to prepare for their implementation
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > - alignment cleanup
> > drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > index d78eb29b94a4..18d56a732b20 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ static const struct mfd_cell rn5t618_cells[] = {
> > { .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
> > };
> >
> > +static const struct mfd_cell rc5t619_cells[] = {
> > + { .name = "rn5t618-regulator" },
> > + { .name = "rc5t619-rtc" },
> > + { .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
> > +};
> > +
> > static bool rn5t618_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> > {
> > switch (reg) {
> > @@ -173,8 +179,14 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rn5t618_cells,
> > - ARRAY_SIZE(rn5t618_cells), NULL, 0, NULL);
> > + if (priv->variant == RC5T619)
> > + ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rc5t619_cells,
>
> Ref: The "-1", please use this as an opportunity to use the defines.
>
> > + ARRAY_SIZE(rc5t619_cells),
> > + NULL, 0, NULL);
> > + else
>
> Are you sure it's not possible for 'variant' to be an unsupported
> device?
>
Well, does it change the behavior for devices other than the rc5t619?
I do not think so. If the mfd driver is bound to unsupported devices,
rn5t618_of_match is wrong.
Or do you want separate cell arrays for each of the three variant now to
ease future extensions?
Regards,
Andreas
Attachment:
pgpBnAjGEwE2a.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
