On Fri, 01 Nov 2019, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> BD71828GW is a single-chip power management IC for battery-powered portable
> devices. The IC integrates 7 buck converters, 7 LDOs, and a 1500 mA
> single-cell linear charger. Also included is a Coulomb counter, a real-time
> clock (RTC), 3 GPO/regulator control pins, HALL input and a 32.768 kHz
> clock gate.
>
> Add MFD core driver providing interrupt controller facilities and i2c
> access to sub device drivers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> No changes compared to v2
>
> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 15 ++
> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 2 +-
> drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c | 322 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd71828.h | 425 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/mfd/rohm-generic.h | 1 +
> 5 files changed, 764 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c
> create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd71828.h
/me wonders why this is still an RFC after 3 revisions?
[...]
> +static struct mfd_cell bd71828_mfd_cells[] = {
> + { .name = "bd71828-pmic", },
> + { .name = "bd71828-gpio", },
> + { .name = "bd71828-led", },
> + /*
> + * We use BD71837 driver to drive the clock block. Only differences to
> + * BD70528 clock gate are the register address and mask.
> + */
> + { .name = "bd718xx-clk", },
> + {
> + .name = "bd71827-power",
Why isn't this on one line, like the others above?
> + }, {
> + .name = "bd70528-rtc",
> + .resources = rtc_irqs,
> + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(rtc_irqs),
> + },
> +};
[...]
> +unsigned int bit0_offsets[] = {11}; /* RTC IRQ register */
> +unsigned int bit1_offsets[] = {10}; /* TEMP IRQ register */
> +unsigned int bit2_offsets[] = {6, 7, 8, 9}; /* BAT MON IRQ registers */
> +unsigned int bit3_offsets[] = {5}; /* BAT IRQ register */
> +unsigned int bit4_offsets[] = {4}; /* CHG IRQ register */
> +unsigned int bit5_offsets[] = {3}; /* VSYS IRQ register */
> +unsigned int bit6_offsets[] = {1, 2}; /* DCIN IRQ registers */
Something actually wrong with the tabbing here, or is this a
Git/patch/mailer anomaly?
[...]
> +static int bd71828_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> + const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> +{
> + struct rohm_regmap_dev *chip;
> + struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_data;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!i2c->irq) {
> + dev_err(&i2c->dev, "No IRQ configured\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + chip = devm_kzalloc(&i2c->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!chip)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + dev_set_drvdata(&i2c->dev, chip);
> +
> + chip->chip_type = ROHM_CHIP_TYPE_BD71828;
> + chip->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(i2c, &bd71828_regmap);
> + if (IS_ERR(chip->regmap)) {
> + dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to initialize Regmap\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(chip->regmap);
> + }
> +
> + ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&i2c->dev, chip->regmap,
> + i2c->irq, IRQF_ONESHOT, 0,
> + &bd71828_irq_chip, &irq_data);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to add IRQ chip\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
Nit: '\n' here.
> + dev_dbg(&i2c->dev, "Registered %d IRQs for chip\n",
> + bd71828_irq_chip.num_irqs);
> +
> + ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
> + bd71828_mfd_cells,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(bd71828_mfd_cells), NULL, 0,
> + regmap_irq_get_domain(irq_data));
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to create subdevices\n");
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id bd71828_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "rohm,bd71828", },
> + { },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, bd71828_of_match);
> +
> +static struct i2c_driver bd71828_drv = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "rohm-bd71828",
> + .of_match_table = bd71828_of_match,
> + },
> + .probe = &bd71828_i2c_probe,
If 'id' isn't used, perhaps you should be using probe2?
[...]
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
