On Mon, 03 Apr 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:
> >On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:
> >
> >> >On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 07 Mar 2023, Okan Sahin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > MFD driver for MAX77541/MAX77540 to enable its sub devices.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The MAX77541 is a multi-function devices. It includes buck
> >> >> > converter and ADC.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The MAX77540 is a high-efficiency buck converter with two 3A
> >> >> > switching phases.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They have same regmap except for ADC part of MAX77541.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Okan Sahin <okan.sahin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 13 ++
> >> >> > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 +
> >> >> > drivers/mfd/max77541.c | 224
> >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> > include/linux/mfd/max77541.h | 97 +++++++++++++++
> >> >> > 4 files changed, 335 insertions(+) create mode 100644
> >> >> > drivers/mfd/max77541.c create mode 100644
> >> >> > include/linux/mfd/max77541.h
> >> >>
> >> >> FYI: I'm not re-reviewing this since you've chosen to ignore some
> >> >> of my previous review comments. Issues highlighted by review
> >> >> comments don't just go away on resubmission.
> >> >
> >> >... and the subject is malformed.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Lee Jones [李琼斯]
> >>
> >> Hi Lee,
> >>
> >> I am sorry if I missed your review comments, this was not my intention. I want
> >to thank you for your contribution. Your feedbacks are very valuable, and I am
> >trying to understand and fix each one before sending the patch. Indeed, I sorted
> >your feedback on previous patches. As far as I know, I have fixed all of them, is
> >there a problem with any of them that I fixed, or is there any missing review?
> >From you, there were some comments like "why did you use this?", I suppose I
> >need to respond them before sending following patches. I thought I should not
> >bother the maintainers unnecessarily. I am sorry for them.
> >
> >Please ask your email client to line-wrap.
> >
> >Here is the part of the review you ignored:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> +static const struct chip_info chip[] = {
> >
> >Why do you need this require sub-structure?
> >
> >> + [MAX77540] = {
> >> + .id = MAX77540,
> >> + .n_devs = ARRAY_SIZE(max77540_devs),
> >> + .devs = max77540_devs,
> >> + },
> >> + [MAX77541] = {
> >> + .id = MAX77541,
> >> + .n_devs = ARRAY_SIZE(max77541_devs),
> >> + .devs = max77541_devs,
> >> + },
> >> +};
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> +static const struct of_device_id max77541_of_id[] = {
> >> + {
> >> + .compatible = "adi,max77540",
> >> + .data = &chip[MAX77540],
> >> + },
> >> + {
> >> + .compatible = "adi,max77541",
> >> + .data = &chip[MAX77541],
> >> + },
> >> + { /* sentinel */ }
> >> +};
> >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77541_of_id);
> >> +
> >> +static const struct i2c_device_id max77541_i2c_id[] = {
> >> + { "max77540", (kernel_ulong_t)&chip[MAX77540] },
> >> + { "max77541", (kernel_ulong_t)&chip[MAX77541] },
> >
> >Just 'MAX77540' is fine.
> >
> >> + { /* sentinel */ }
> >
> >Remove the comment, we know how terminators work.
> >
> >Same comments for max77541_of_id.
Your mailer is still broken. Please line wrap.
> In fact, one of the maintainers suggested assigning chip_info to data instead of enumeration. Then I added chip_info and put devices into sub-structure above. I will replace chip_info with id structure in max77541 device structure, right? I will use enumeration for data as I will assign it to id, and distinguish different devices.
Yes, that's correct. Please remove chip_info altogether.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
