+ enum {
+ MULTI_BUCK12,
+ MULTI_BUCK123,
+ MULTI_BUCK1234,
+ MULTI_BUCK12_34,
+ MULTI_FIRST = MULTI_BUCK12,
+ MULTI_LAST = MULTI_BUCK12_34,
+ MULTI_NUM = MULTI_LAST - MULTI_FIRST + 1
MULT_NUM
will suffice instead all this.
+ };
But why enum at all? See below.
Just for the switch case readability.
I have to iterate across the multiphases array for look up name into
device tree and evaluate in that order.
This can be reduced to:
enum {
MULTI_BUCK12,
MULTI_BUCK123,
MULTI_BUCK1234,
MULTI_BUCK12_34,
MULTI_NUM = MULTI_BUCK12_34 - MULTI_BUCK12 + 1
};
...
+ /*
+ * Switch case defines different possible multi phase config
+ * This is based on dts buck node name.
+ * Buck node name must be chosen accordingly.
+ * Default case is no Multiphase buck.
+ * In case of Multiphase configuration, value should be defined for
+ * buck_configured to avoid creating bucks for every buck in multiphase
+ */
+ for (multi = MULTI_FIRST; multi < MULTI_NUM; multi++) {
+ np = of_find_node_by_name(tps->dev->of_node, multiphases[multi]);
+ npname = of_node_full_name(np);
+ np_pmic_parent = of_get_parent(of_get_parent(np));
+ if (of_node_cmp(of_node_full_name(np_pmic_parent), tps->dev->of_node->full_name))
Why not of_node_full_name() in the second case?
Sure.
+ continue;
+ delta = strcmp(npname, multiphases[multi]);
+ if (!delta) {
+ switch (multi) {
+ case MULTI_BUCK12:
This all looks like match_string() reinvention.
I can go with match_string but this is not significantly changing the game:
index = match_string(multiphases, ARRAY_SIZE(multiphases), npname);
if (index >= 0) {
switch (index) {
No question on all your other feedback. Just wondering if I missed
something with match_string use. Looks like a good idea indeed but this
is not drastically changing the code as you seem to expect... Let me
know if you think I'm doing it in a wrong way.
Regards,
Jerome.
