Hello Kevin, On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:10:17 -0800, Kevin wrote: > Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Add support for TPS65224 PMIC in the TPS6594 driver as they share > > significant functional overlap. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c | 16 ++++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c > > index 5afb1736f..7ec66d31b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > /* > > - * SPI access driver for TI TPS6594/TPS6593/LP8764 PMICs > > + * SPI access driver for TI TPS65224/TPS6594/TPS6593/LP8764 PMICs > > * > > * Copyright (C) 2023 BayLibre Incorporated - https://www.baylibre.com/ > > */ > > @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static int tps6594_spi_reg_write(void *context, unsigned int reg, unsigned int v > > return spi_write(spi, buf, count); > > } > > > > -static const struct regmap_config tps6594_spi_regmap_config = { > > +static struct regmap_config tps6594_spi_regmap_config = { > > .reg_bits = 16, > > .val_bits = 8, > > .max_register = TPS6594_REG_DWD_FAIL_CNT_REG, > > @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id tps6594_spi_of_match_table[] = { > > { .compatible = "ti,tps6594-q1", .data = (void *)TPS6594, }, > > { .compatible = "ti,tps6593-q1", .data = (void *)TPS6593, }, > > { .compatible = "ti,lp8764-q1", .data = (void *)LP8764, }, > > + { .compatible = "ti,tps65224-q1", .data = (void *)TPS65224, }, > > {} > > }; > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tps6594_spi_of_match_table); > > @@ -101,15 +102,18 @@ static int tps6594_spi_probe(struct spi_device *spi) > > tps->reg = spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0); > > tps->irq = spi->irq; > > > > - tps->regmap = devm_regmap_init(dev, NULL, spi, &tps6594_spi_regmap_config); > > - if (IS_ERR(tps->regmap)) > > - return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(tps->regmap), "Failed to init regmap\n"); > > - > > match = of_match_device(tps6594_spi_of_match_table, dev); > > if (!match) > > return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "Failed to find matching chip ID\n"); > > tps->chip_id = (unsigned long)match->data; > > > > + if (tps->chip_id == TPS65224) > > + tps6594_spi_regmap_config.volatile_table = &tps65224_volatile_table; > > Similar to my comment on the i2c series, but to be more specific: > > Rather than use the .data pointer in the of_match_table as simply a > chip_id, instead make that into a struct that can contain chip-specific > values/pointers etc, and then each compatible can have a custom struct > (if needed.) > > This way, at probe/match time, all the chip-specific data is setup using > that struct, so that at runtime, there doesn't need to be any "if > (chip_id)" checking. > > Kevin Thanks for the feedback! We will implement the same in the next version. Regards, Bhargav
