On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:54:45AM +0800, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>
>
> On 9/24/2023 3:07 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > +
> > > + switch (vib->data->hw_type) {
> > > + case SSBI_VIB:
> > > mask = SSBI_VIB_DRV_LEVEL_MASK;
> > > shift = SSBI_VIB_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > + break;
> > > + case SPMI_VIB:
> > > + mask = SPMI_VIB_DRV_LEVEL_MASK;
> > > + shift = SPMI_VIB_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > + break;
> > > + case SPMI_VIB_GEN2:
> > > + mask = SPMI_VIB_GEN2_DRV_MASK;
> > > + shift = SPMI_VIB_GEN2_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > + break;
> > > + default:
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > Could you please move the switch to the previous patch? Then it would
> > be more obvious that you are just adding the SPMI_VIB_GEN2 here.
> >
> > Other than that LGTM.
>
> Sure, I can move the switch to the previous refactoring patch.
Actually, the idea of having a const "reg" or "chip", etc. structure is
to avoid this kind of runtime checks based on hardware type and instead
use common computation. I believe you need to move mask and shift into
the chip-specific structure and avoid defining hw_type.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
