On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:59 PM ChiaEn Wu <peterwu.pub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Add Mediatek MT6370 MFD support. ... > +config MFD_MT6370 > + tristate "Mediatek MT6370 SubPMIC" > + select MFD_CORE > + select REGMAP_I2C > + select REGMAP_IRQ > + depends on I2C > + help > + Say Y here to enable MT6370 SubPMIC functional support. > + It consists of a single cell battery charger with ADC monitoring, RGB > + LEDs, dual channel flashlight, WLED backlight driver, display bias > + voltage supply, one general purpose LDO, and the USB Type-C & PD > + controller complies with the latest USB Type-C and PD standards. What will be the module name in case it's chosen to be built as a module? ... > obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SOC_PMIC_BXTWC) += intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc.o > obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SOC_PMIC_CHTWC) += intel_soc_pmic_chtwc.o > obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SOC_PMIC_CHTDC_TI) += intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.o > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MT6360) += mt6360-core.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MT6370) += mt6370.o > mt6397-objs := mt6397-core.o mt6397-irq.o mt6358-irq.o > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MT6397) += mt6397.o > obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SOC_PMIC_MRFLD) += intel_soc_pmic_mrfld.o This whole bunch of drivers is in the wrong place in Makefile. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220616182524.7956-2-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ ... > +#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR 0x1FF Wondering if (BIT(10) - 1) gives a better hint on how hardware limits this (so it will be clear it's 10-bit address). ... > +static int mt6370_check_vendor_info(struct mt6370_info *info) > +{ > + unsigned int devinfo; > + int ret; > + > + ret = regmap_read(info->regmap, MT6370_REG_DEV_INFO, &devinfo); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + switch (FIELD_GET(MT6370_VENID_MASK, devinfo)) { > + case MT6370_VENID_RT5081: > + case MT6370_VENID_RT5081A: > + case MT6370_VENID_MT6370: > + case MT6370_VENID_MT6371: > + case MT6370_VENID_MT6372P: > + case MT6370_VENID_MT6372CP: return 0; > + break; > + default: > + dev_err(info->dev, "Unknown Vendor ID 0x%02x\n", devinfo); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > + > + return 0; ...and drop these two lines? > +} ... > + bank_idx = *(u8 *)reg_buf; > + bank_addr = *(u8 *)(reg_buf + 1); Why not const u8 *u8_buf = reg_buf; bank_idx = u8_buf[0]; bank_addr = u8_buf[1]; ? ... > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + else if (ret != val_size) Redundant 'else'. > + return -EIO; ... > + bank_idx = *(u8 *)data; > + bank_addr = *(u8 *)(data + 1); As per above. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
