On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 10:53 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Wed, 08 Jan 2020, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 12:41 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Few ROHM PMICs allow setting the voltage states for different > > > > > > system states > > > > > > like RUN, IDLE, SUSPEND and LPSR. States are then changed via > > > > > > SoC > > > > > > specific > > > > > > mechanisms. bd718x7 driver implemented device-tree parsing > > > > > > functions for > > > > > > these state specific voltages. The parsing functions can be re- > > > > > > used > > > > > > by > > > > > > other ROHM chip drivers like bd71828. Split the generic > > > > > > functions > > > > > > from > > > > > > bd718x7-regulator.c to rohm-regulator.c and export them for > > > > > > other > > > > > > modules > > > > > > to use. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen < > > > > > > matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REGULATOR_ROHM) > > > > > > +int rohm_regulator_set_dvs_levels(const struct rohm_dvs_config > > > > > > *dvs, > > > > > > + struct device_node *np, > > > > > > + const struct regulator_desc > > > > > > *desc, > > > > > > + struct regmap *regmap); > > > > > > > > > > Does these really need to live in the parent's header file? > > > > > > > > I don't know what would be a better place? > > > > > > You don't have a regulator header file? > > > > > > It seems over-kill to create one for this, so leave it as is. > > > > > > > > What other call-sites are there? > > > > > > > > After this series the bd718x7-regulator.c and bd71828-regulator.c > > > > are > > > > the in-tree drivers using these. rohm-regulator.c is implementing > > > > them. > > > > And I hope we see yet another driver landing in later this year. > > > > > > > > Anyways, I will investigate if I can switch this to some common > > > > (not > > > > rohm specific) DT bindings at some point (I've scheduled this study > > > > to > > > > March) - If I can then they should live in regulator core headers. > > > > > > > > But changing the existing properties should again be own set of > > > > patches > > > > and I'd prefer doing that work independently of this series and not > > > > delaying the BD71828 due to not-yet-evaluated bd718x7 property > > > > changes. > > > > > > That's fine. > > > > Glad to hear :) By the way, I already sent the v9 ;) > > It's in my queue. Although you didn't submit the whole set to me, so I only have a few of the patches. Why did you choose to do that this time? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
