Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (pmbus/adp1050): Support adp1051 and adp1055

[Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/6/24 03:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:03:11PM +0800, Alexis Cezar Torreno wrote:
> > ADP1051: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Temperature
> > ADP1055: 6 PWM for I/O Voltage, I/O Current, Power, Temperature
>
> Missing blank line and perhaps you can add Datasheet: tag(s) for these HW?
> (see `git log --no-merges --grep Datasheet:` for the example)

Is that an official tag ? Frankly, if so, I think it is quite useless
in the patch description because datasheet locations keep changing.
I think it is much better to provide a link in the driver documentation.

> > Signed-off-by: Alexis Cezar Torreno <alexisczezar.torreno@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ...
>
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/adp1050.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/adp1050.c
> > @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
> >    */
> >   #include <linux/bits.h>
> >   #include <linux/i2c.h>
> > -#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
> >   #include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
> >   
> >   #include "pmbus.h"
>
> Stray change. This pure depends on the your `locale` settings.
> The original one seems using en_US.UTF-8 and it's perfectly fine.

Agreed.

> ...
>
> > +static struct pmbus_driver_info adp1051_info = {
> > +	.pages = 1,
> > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_IN] = linear,
> > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_OUT] = linear,
> > +	.format[PSC_CURRENT_IN] = linear,
> > +	.format[PSC_TEMPERATURE] = linear,
> > +	.func[0] = PMBUS_HAVE_VIN | PMBUS_HAVE_IIN | PMBUS_HAVE_VOUT
> > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT
> > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT
> > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP,
>
> I dunno if the other entries in the file are written in the same style, but
> usual one is
>
> 	.func[0] = PMBUS_HAVE_VIN | PMBUS_HAVE_IIN | PMBUS_HAVE_VOUT |
> 		   PMBUS_HAVE_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT |
> 		   PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT |
> 		   PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP,
>
> Or even more logically
>
> 	.func[0] = PMBUS_HAVE_VIN | PMBUS_HAVE_IIN |
> 		   PMBUS_HAVE_VOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_IOUT |
> 		   PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP |
> 		   PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT |
> 		   PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_IOUT |
> 		   PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP,
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct pmbus_driver_info adp1055_info = {
> > +	.pages = 1,
> > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_IN] = linear,
> > +	.format[PSC_VOLTAGE_OUT] = linear,
> > +	.format[PSC_CURRENT_IN] = linear,
> > +	.format[PSC_TEMPERATURE] = linear,
> > +	.func[0] = PMBUS_HAVE_VIN | PMBUS_HAVE_IIN | PMBUS_HAVE_VOUT
> > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP2 | PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP3
> > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_POUT | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_VOUT
> > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_IOUT | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_INPUT
> > +		   | PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP,
>
> Ditto.

That one slipped through with the original driver submission.
I thought that checkpatch complains about that, but it turns out that
it doesn't. I agree, though, that the usual style should be used.

Guenter

> > +};
>
> ...
>
> >   static const struct i2c_device_id adp1050_id[] = {
> > -	{"adp1050"},
> > +	{ .name = "adp1050", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&adp1050_info},
> > +	{ .name = "adp1051", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&adp1051_info},
> > +	{ .name = "adp1055", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&adp1055_info},
> >   	{}
> >   };
>
> > +
>
> Stray blank line.
>
> >   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, adp1050_id);