Hi Farouk, Before jumping into the review, who is going to take this and the previous patch? Peter shall I take it? Now to the review :-) On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 06:38:15PM GMT, Farouk Bouabid wrote: > Theobroma Systems Mule is an MCU that emulates a set of I2C devices, > among which an amc6821 and devices that are reachable through an I2C-mux. > The devices on the mux can be selected by writing the appropriate device > number to an I2C config register (amc6821 reg 0xff). > > This driver is expected to be probed as a platform device with amc6821 > as its parent i2c device. > > Add support for the mule-i2c-mux platform driver. The amc6821 driver Along the driver I expressed some concern about the prefixes. You should avoid prefixes such as mux_* or MUX_* because they don't belong to your driver. You should always use your driver's name: 1. mule_* 2. mule_mux_* 3. mule_i2c_mux_* You have used the 3rd, I'd rather prefer the 1st. Because when you are in i2c/muxex/ it's implied that you are an i2c mux device. But it's a matter of personal taste. Other than this, there is still, one major error down below. > support for the mux will be added in a later commit. > > Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Farouk Bouabid <farouk.bouabid@xxxxxxxxx> ... > +#include <linux/i2c-mux.h> > +#include <linux/i2c.h> > +#include <linux/module.h> > +#include <linux/of.h> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h> > +#include <linux/property.h> > +#include <linux/regmap.h> > + > +#define MUX_CONFIG_REG 0xff > +#define MUX_DEFAULT_DEV 0x0 Please define these as MULE_I2C_MUX_* > + > +struct mule_i2c_reg_mux { > + struct regmap *regmap; > +}; > + > +static int mux_select(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 dev) > +{ > + struct mule_i2c_reg_mux *mux = muxc->priv; > + > + return regmap_write(mux->regmap, MUX_CONFIG_REG, dev); > +} > + > +static int mux_deselect(struct i2c_mux_core *muxc, u32 dev) > +{ > + return mux_select(muxc, MUX_DEFAULT_DEV); > +} > + > +static void mux_remove(void *data) Please call these mule_i2c_mux_*(), the mux_ prefix doesn't belong to this driver. > +{ > + struct i2c_mux_core *muxc = data; > + > + i2c_mux_del_adapters(muxc); > + > + mux_deselect(muxc, MUX_DEFAULT_DEV); > +} ... > + /* Create device adapters */ > + for_each_child_of_node(mux_dev->of_node, dev) { > + u32 reg; > + > + ret = of_property_read_u32(dev, "reg", ®); > + if (ret) > + return dev_err_probe(mux_dev, ret, > + "No reg property found for %s\n", > + of_node_full_name(dev)); > + > + if (old_fw && reg != 0) { > + dev_warn(mux_dev, > + "Mux is not supported, please update Mule FW\n"); > + continue; > + } > + > + ret = mux_select(muxc, reg); > + if (ret) { > + dev_warn(mux_dev, > + "Device %d not supported, please update Mule FW\n", reg); > + continue; > + } > + > + ret = i2c_mux_add_adapter(muxc, 0, reg); > + if (ret) > + return ret; do we need to delete the adapters we added in previous cycles? > + } > + > + mux_deselect(muxc, MUX_DEFAULT_DEV); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static const struct of_device_id mule_i2c_mux_of_match[] = { > + {.compatible = "tsd,mule-i2c-mux",}, if you are going to resend, can you leave one space after the '{' and before the '}' > + {}, > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mule_i2c_mux_of_match); > + > +static struct platform_driver mule_i2c_mux_driver = { > + .driver = { I don't see the need for this '\t' here, the alignment is too far. It just looks bad. Your choice, though. Thanks, Andi > + .name = "mule-i2c-mux", > + .of_match_table = mule_i2c_mux_of_match, > + }, > + .probe = mule_i2c_mux_probe, > +}; > + > +module_platform_driver(mule_i2c_mux_driver); > + > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Farouk Bouabid <farouk.bouabid@xxxxxxxxx>"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("I2C mux driver for Theobroma Systems Mule"); > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > -- > 2.34.1 >