On 17/07/2024 11:30, Antoniu Miclaus wrote: > Add separate handling for adf4378 within the driver. > > The main difference between adf4377 and adf4378 is that adf4378 has only > one output which is handled by only one gpio. > > Signed-off-by: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c > index 9284c13f1abb..e02298a8b47f 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c > @@ -387,6 +387,11 @@ > #define ADF4377_FREQ_PFD_250MHZ (250 * HZ_PER_MHZ) > #define ADF4377_FREQ_PFD_320MHZ (320 * HZ_PER_MHZ) > > +enum adf4377_dev_type { > + ADF4377, > + ADF4378, > +}; > + > enum { > ADF4377_FREQ, > }; > @@ -402,6 +407,7 @@ enum muxout_select_mode { > > struct adf4377_state { > struct spi_device *spi; > + enum adf4377_dev_type type; > struct regmap *regmap; > struct clk *clkin; > /* Protect against concurrent accesses to the device and data content */ > @@ -687,7 +693,7 @@ static void adf4377_gpio_init(struct adf4377_state *st) > if (st->gpio_enclk1) > gpiod_set_value(st->gpio_enclk1, 1); > > - if (st->gpio_enclk2) > + if (st->gpio_enclk2 && st->type == ADF4377) Why? Isn't everything correct for NULL? > gpiod_set_value(st->gpio_enclk2, 1); > } > > @@ -889,11 +895,13 @@ static int adf4377_properties_parse(struct adf4377_state *st) > return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk1), > "failed to get the CE GPIO\n"); > > - st->gpio_enclk2 = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&st->spi->dev, "clk2-enable", > - GPIOD_OUT_LOW); > - if (IS_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2)) > - return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2), > - "failed to get the CE GPIO\n"); > + if (st->type == ADF4377) { So the device does not have this pin? Then you should express it in the bindings. > + st->gpio_enclk2 = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&st->spi->dev, "clk2-enable", > + GPIOD_OUT_LOW); > + if (IS_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2)) > + return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2), > + "failed to get the CE GPIO\n"); > + } > > ret = device_property_match_property_string(&spi->dev, "adi,muxout-select", > adf4377_muxout_modes, > @@ -945,6 +953,7 @@ static int adf4377_probe(struct spi_device *spi) > > st->regmap = regmap; > st->spi = spi; > + st->type = spi_get_device_id(spi)->driver_data; spi_get_device_match_data() > mutex_init(&st->lock); > > ret = adf4377_properties_parse(st); > @@ -964,13 +973,15 @@ static int adf4377_probe(struct spi_device *spi) > } > > static const struct spi_device_id adf4377_id[] = { > - { "adf4377", 0 }, > + { "adf4377", ADF4377 }, > + { "adf4378", ADF4378 }, > {} > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi, adf4377_id); > > static const struct of_device_id adf4377_of_match[] = { > { .compatible = "adi,adf4377" }, > + { .compatible = "adi,adf4378" }, Your device ID tables have incoherent match data. Considering that one type is 0, this is error-prone and discouraged. Best regards, Krzysztof