On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:03:00AM +0800, Chuhong Yuan wrote: > Brian Masney <masneyb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2019年7月28日周日 下午4:31写道： > > devm_add_action() could be used in the probe function to schedule the call > > to tsl2772_chip_off(). That would eliminate the need for > > tsl2772_remove(). See tsl2772_disable_regulators_action() for an example in > > that driver. > > > > I find that we can use devm_add_action_or_reset() for > tsl2772_disable_regulators_action() to eliminate the fault handling code. > > I am not sure whether devm_add_action() can be used for > tsl2772_chip_off() because it returns an integer, not void. > And the return value is used in several functions. I would add a wrapper function (tsl2772_chip_off_action?) with the expected declaration that calls tsl2772_chip_off(). > > Chuhong: Another potential cleanup to shrink the size of this driver is > > to move it over to the regulator_bulk_() API. I didn't realize that API > > existed at the time I introduced the regulator support. If you're > > interested in taking on that cleanup as well, I can test those changes > > for you if you don't have the hardware. > > > > Brian > > > > Does that mean merging vdd_supply and vddio_supply to an array of > regulator_bulk_data and utilize regulator_bulk_() API to operate them > together? Yes. > I have an additional question that I find regulator_disable() is used in the > end of many .remove functions of drivers, which hinders us to use devm > functions. > One example is drivers/iio/light/gp2ap020a00f.c. > Is there any solution to this problem? There are devm_regulator_*() variants of the regulator API available that you can use. Lots of other APIs in the kernel have devm variants to simply drivers. Brian
