Hi, On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 13:43:51 +0100, Julien Panis wrote: > On 2/23/24 10:36, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote: > > Add support for TPS65224 PFSM in the TPS6594 PFSM driver > > as they share significant functionality. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/misc/tps6594-pfsm.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/tps6594-pfsm.c b/drivers/misc/tps6594-pfsm.c > > index 88dcac814..4fa071093 100644 > > --- a/drivers/misc/tps6594-pfsm.c > > +++ b/drivers/misc/tps6594-pfsm.c > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > /* > > - * PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine) driver for TI TPS6594/TPS6593/LP8764 PMICs > > + * PFSM (Pre-configurable Finite State Machine) driver for TI TPS65224/TPS6594/TPS6593/LP8764 PMICs > > * > > * Copyright (C) 2023 BayLibre Incorporated - https://www.baylibre.com/ > > */ > > @@ -34,15 +34,17 @@ > > > > #define TPS6594_FILE_TO_PFSM(f) container_of((f)->private_data, struct tps6594_pfsm, miscdev) > > > > -/** > > +/* > > Here it should be /** for the structure documentation, I think. > Please check in kernel doc. > Thanks for pointing it out! Will fix it in the next version. > [...] > > > @@ -210,8 +230,12 @@ static long tps6594_pfsm_ioctl(struct file *f, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long a > > return ret; > > > > /* Modify NSLEEP1-2 bits */ > > - ret = regmap_clear_bits(pfsm->regmap, TPS6594_REG_FSM_NSLEEP_TRIGGERS, > > - TPS6594_BIT_NSLEEP2B); > > + if (pfsm->chip_id == TPS65224) > > + ret = regmap_clear_bits(pfsm->regmap, TPS6594_REG_FSM_NSLEEP_TRIGGERS, > > + TPS6594_BIT_NSLEEP1B); > > + else > > + ret = regmap_clear_bits(pfsm->regmap, TPS6594_REG_FSM_NSLEEP_TRIGGERS, > > + TPS6594_BIT_NSLEEP2B); > > Instead of this if/else, a ternary operator might do the trick here: > regmap_clear_bits(pfsm->regmap, TPS6594_REG_FSM_NSLEEP_TRIGGERS, > pfsm->chip_id == TPS65224 ? TPS6594_BIT_NSLEEP1B : TPS6594_BIT_NSLEEP2B) > > Julien Sure, this looks neat :-). We will use ternary operator here in the next version. Thanks! Regards, Bhargav
