On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 01:21:39PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2020, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>
> > Hi Lee,
> >
> > Thank you for the detailed review!
> >
> > I will prepare a new revision, but there are still a couple of open
> > points..
>
> Could you please snip your replies, leaving only the open points.
>
> Scrolling through lots of empty quotes or "done" comments is quite
> time consuming. Thanks.
Sure, I'll take that into account.
> [...]
>
> > > > + ret = regmap_read(atc260x->regmap, atc260x->rev_reg, &chip_rev);
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get chip revision\n");
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (chip_rev < 0 || chip_rev > 31) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "Unknown chip revision: %d\n", ret);
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > This still seems limiting.
> >
> > This is based on the vendor implementation. Unfortunately I don't have
> > access to a data sheet or any other source of information about the
> > management of the chip revisions.
>
> So which versions does this driver work with? All 32?
I'm not even sure there are so many revisions, I guess that's just a
rough validation for a vendor reserved range.
For the moment, the only place where the functionality is affected
by the chip revision is in the regulator driver - there is a special
handling for the ATC2603C rev.B chip variant.
I expect some additional handling might be required for new drivers
bringing support for the other functions provided by the hardware.
> [...]
Thanks,
Cristi
