On 11/25/2021 9:15 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 03:12:31PM +0530, Satya Priya wrote:+ for (reg = ®_data[0]; reg->name; reg++) {Why is this not just iterating from 0 to ARRAY_SIZE() - that's the more normal way to write things and doesn't require a terminator on the array.
While changing some other things in the probe I made this change, but I think this is not necessary, I'll change it to iterate from 0 to ARRAY_SIZE()
+ child_node = of_get_child_by_name(parent_node, reg->name); + if (!child_node) { + dev_err(dev, "child node %s not found\n", reg->name); + return -ENODEV; + }This could be pulled out of the array.
Not sure what you meant here. could you elaborate a bit?
I think you're also missing an of_node_put() on the child_node.
I'll add it in the next version.
+ rc = of_property_read_u32(child_node, "reg", &base); + if (rc < 0) { + dev_err(dev, "%s: failed to get regulator base rc=%d\n", + reg->name, rc); + return rc; + }It's not clear to me why this in particular is being read out of the DT binding, I'd expect this to be in the array describing the regulator the same as everything else?
I thought that the base address would change with boards, but seems it doesn't change. I'll add this in the array.
