Re: [PATCH v8 08/12] regulator: bd718x7: Split driver to common and bd718x7 specific parts

["Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Lee,

On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 10:53 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jan 2020, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> 
> > Hello Lee,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 12:41 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Few ROHM PMICs allow setting the voltage states for different
> > > > system states
> > > > like RUN, IDLE, SUSPEND and LPSR. States are then changed via
> > > > SoC
> > > > specific
> > > > mechanisms. bd718x7 driver implemented device-tree parsing
> > > > functions for
> > > > these state specific voltages. The parsing functions can be re-
> > > > used 
> > > > by
> > > > other ROHM chip drivers like bd71828. Split the generic
> > > > functions
> > > > from
> > > > bd718x7-regulator.c to rohm-regulator.c and export them for
> > > > other
> > > > modules
> > > > to use.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <
> > > > matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REGULATOR_ROHM)
> > > > +int rohm_regulator_set_dvs_levels(const struct rohm_dvs_config
> > > > *dvs,
> > > > +				  struct device_node *np,
> > > > +				  const struct regulator_desc
> > > > *desc,
> > > > +				  struct regmap *regmap);
> > > 
> > > Does these really need to live in the parent's header file?
> > 
> > I don't know what would be a better place?
> 
> You don't have a regulator header file?
> 
> It seems over-kill to create one for this, so leave it as is.
> 
> > > What other call-sites are there?
> > 
> > After this series the bd718x7-regulator.c and bd71828-regulator.c
> > are
> > the in-tree drivers using these. rohm-regulator.c is implementing
> > them.
> > And I hope we see yet another driver landing in later this year. 
> > 
> > Anyways, I will investigate if I can switch this to some common
> > (not
> > rohm specific) DT bindings at some point (I've scheduled this study
> > to
> > March) - If I can then they should live in regulator core headers.
> > 
> > But changing the existing properties should again be own set of
> > patches
> > and I'd prefer doing that work independently of this series and not
> > delaying the BD71828 due to not-yet-evaluated bd718x7 property
> > changes.
> 
> That's fine.


Glad to hear :) By the way, I already sent the v9 ;)

Br,
	Matti