On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:45:39PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 07-01-19 16:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:15:55PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > + } else if (d->pmic_i2c_address) {
> > > + if (i2c_address == d->pmic_i2c_address) {
> > > + ret = regmap_update_bits(intel_pmic_opregion->regmap,
> > > + reg_address, mask, value);
> > > + } else {
> > > + pr_err("%s: Unexpected i2c-addr: 0x%02x (reg-addr 0x%x value 0x%x mask 0x%x)\n",
> > > + __func__, i2c_address, reg_address, value, mask);
> > > + ret = -ENXIO;
> > > + }
> >
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_xpower.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_xpower.c
> > > + .pmic_i2c_address = 0x34,
> >
> > Can we just have a hook here instead of exposing PMIC I2C address?
> > Am I missing something in case it's not possible?
>
> We already have a hook, but it isn't really necessary to implement
> that for each model PMIC. The MFD device which is the PMIC's parent
> in most cases will give us a regmap to access the PMIC registers and
> that allows us to do a generic implementation.
>
> But the MIPI PMIC sequence includes an i2c-address as some PMICs
> span multiple i2c-addresses. For the simple single i2c-address case
> the regmap gives us access to the registers behind that single address
> and we can use a generic solution. In this case we should verify the
> i2c-addr is what we expect, which is where the pmic_i2c_address comes in.
But we also can have a generic hook in intel_pmic.c and assign it whenever
it's the case?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
