On 17/07/2024 11:30, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:
> Add separate handling for adf4378 within the driver.
>
> The main difference between adf4377 and adf4378 is that adf4378 has only
> one output which is handled by only one gpio.
>
> Signed-off-by: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
> index 9284c13f1abb..e02298a8b47f 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
> @@ -387,6 +387,11 @@
> #define ADF4377_FREQ_PFD_250MHZ (250 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
> #define ADF4377_FREQ_PFD_320MHZ (320 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
>
> +enum adf4377_dev_type {
> + ADF4377,
> + ADF4378,
> +};
> +
> enum {
> ADF4377_FREQ,
> };
> @@ -402,6 +407,7 @@ enum muxout_select_mode {
>
> struct adf4377_state {
> struct spi_device *spi;
> + enum adf4377_dev_type type;
> struct regmap *regmap;
> struct clk *clkin;
> /* Protect against concurrent accesses to the device and data content */
> @@ -687,7 +693,7 @@ static void adf4377_gpio_init(struct adf4377_state *st)
> if (st->gpio_enclk1)
> gpiod_set_value(st->gpio_enclk1, 1);
>
> - if (st->gpio_enclk2)
> + if (st->gpio_enclk2 && st->type == ADF4377)
Why? Isn't everything correct for NULL?
> gpiod_set_value(st->gpio_enclk2, 1);
> }
>
> @@ -889,11 +895,13 @@ static int adf4377_properties_parse(struct adf4377_state *st)
> return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk1),
> "failed to get the CE GPIO\n");
>
> - st->gpio_enclk2 = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&st->spi->dev, "clk2-enable",
> - GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> - if (IS_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2))
> - return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2),
> - "failed to get the CE GPIO\n");
> + if (st->type == ADF4377) {
So the device does not have this pin? Then you should express it in the
bindings.
> + st->gpio_enclk2 = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&st->spi->dev, "clk2-enable",
> + GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> + if (IS_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2))
> + return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2),
> + "failed to get the CE GPIO\n");
> + }
>
> ret = device_property_match_property_string(&spi->dev, "adi,muxout-select",
> adf4377_muxout_modes,
> @@ -945,6 +953,7 @@ static int adf4377_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>
> st->regmap = regmap;
> st->spi = spi;
> + st->type = spi_get_device_id(spi)->driver_data;
spi_get_device_match_data()
> mutex_init(&st->lock);
>
> ret = adf4377_properties_parse(st);
> @@ -964,13 +973,15 @@ static int adf4377_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> }
>
> static const struct spi_device_id adf4377_id[] = {
> - { "adf4377", 0 },
> + { "adf4377", ADF4377 },
> + { "adf4378", ADF4378 },
> {}
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi, adf4377_id);
>
> static const struct of_device_id adf4377_of_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "adi,adf4377" },
> + { .compatible = "adi,adf4378" },
Your device ID tables have incoherent match data. Considering that one
type is 0, this is error-prone and discouraged.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
