On 2023/4/12 5:15, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:47:42PM -0700, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>> Add dphy pmu to turn on/off the dphy power switch.
[...]
>> +
>> static int jh71xx_pmu_set_state(struct jh71xx_pmu_dev *pmd, u32 mask, bool on)
>> {
>> struct jh71xx_pmu *pmu = pmd->pmu;
>> @@ -191,6 +213,8 @@ static int jh71xx_pmu_set_state(struct jh71xx_pmu_dev *pmd, u32 mask, bool on)
>>
>> if (pmu->match_data->pmu_type == JH71XX_PMU_GENERAL)
>> ret = jh71xx_pmu_general_set_state(pmd, mask, on);
>> + else if (pmu->match_data->pmu_type == JH71XX_PMU_DPHY)
>> + ret = jh71xx_pmu_dphy_set_state(pmd, mask, on);
>
> Perhaps I am verging on over-complication, but I dislike this carry on.
> Is this the only time we'll see a power domain provider coming out of
> a syscon, or are there likely to be more?
> Either way, I think having an ops struct w/ both parse_dt() and the
> set_state() implementations would be neater than what you have here.
>
OK, I will use call back make here neater.
> Very much open to dissenting opinions there though. Emil? Walker?
>
> Cheers,
> Conor.
>
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
[...]
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
