On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> Hello Lee,
>
> On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 16:46 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Dec 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>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes since v5:
> > > - No changes
> > >
> > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 15 ++
> > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c | 319 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd71828.h | 425
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/linux/mfd/rohm-generic.h | 1 +
> > > 5 files changed, 761 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c
> > > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd71828.h
> >
> > Couple of small nits. Once fixed, please apply my:
> >
> > For my own reference:
> > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > index 420900852166..c3c9432ef51c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > @@ -1906,6 +1906,21 @@ config MFD_ROHM_BD70528
> > > 10 bits SAR ADC for battery temperature monitor and 1S
> > > battery
> > > charger.
> > >
> > > +config MFD_ROHM_BD71828
> > > + tristate "ROHM BD71828 Power Management IC"
> > > + depends on I2C=y
> > > + depends on OF
> > > + select REGMAP_I2C
> > > + select REGMAP_IRQ
> > > + select MFD_CORE
> > > + help
> > > + Select this option to get support for the ROHM BD71828 Power
> > > + Management IC. 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),
> > > and
> > > + a 32.768 kHz clock gate.
> > > +
> > > config MFD_STM32_LPTIMER
> > > tristate "Support for STM32 Low-Power Timer"
> > > depends on (ARCH_STM32 && OF) || COMPILE_TEST
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Makefile b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> > > index aed99f08739f..ca2d55c679c5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
> > > @@ -252,6 +252,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MXS_LRADC) += mxs-lradc.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_SC27XX_PMIC) += sprd-sc27xx-spi.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_RAVE_SP_CORE) += rave-sp.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_ROHM_BD70528) += rohm-bd70528.o
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_ROHM_BD71828) += rohm-bd71828.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_ROHM_BD718XX) += rohm-bd718x7.o
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_STMFX) += stmfx.o
> > > -
> >
> > Nit: This is an unrelated change and should not really be in this
> > patch.
>
> Ok. Will get rid of it.
>
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c b/drivers/mfd/rohm-
> > > bd71828.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..7f445d699fd9
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,319 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > > +//
> > > +// Copyright (C) 2019 ROHM Semiconductors
> > > +//
> > > +// ROHM BD71828 PMIC driver
> > > +
>
> //snip
>
> > > +
> > > +static struct i2c_driver bd71828_drv = {
> > > + .driver = {
> > > + .name = "rohm-bd71828",
> > > + .of_match_table = bd71828_of_match,
> > > + },
> > > + .probe_new = &bd71828_i2c_probe,
> > > +};
> > > +
> >
> > Nit: You can remove this line.
>
> Will do.
>
> >
> > > +module_i2c_driver(bd71828_drv);
> > > +
> > > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ");
> > > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ROHM BD71828 Power Management IC driver");
> > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >
> > This does not match the header.
>
> How is that? This is what is stated in module.h for the
> MODULE_LICENSE:
>
> /*
> * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating
> free
> * software modules
> *
> * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2]
> * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2]
> * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights
> and more]
> * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU Public License v2
> * or BSD license choice]
> * "Dual MIT/GPL" [GNU Public License v2
> * or MIT license choice]
> * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU Public License v2
> * or Mozilla license choice]
> *
> * The following other idents are available
> *
> * "Proprietary" [Non free products]
> *
> * Both "GPL v2" and "GPL" (the latter also in dual licensed strings)
> are
> * merely stating that the module is licensed under the GPL v2, but are
> not
> * telling whether "GPL v2 only" or "GPL v2 or later". The reason why
> there
> * are two variants is a historic and failed attempt to convey more
> * information in the MODULE_LICENSE string. For module loading the
> * "only/or later" distinction is completely irrelevant and does
> neither
> * replace the proper license identifiers in the corresponding source
> file
> * nor amends them in any way. The sole purpose is to make the
> * 'Proprietary' flagging work and to refuse to bind symbols which are
> * exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL when a non free module is loaded.
> *
> * In the same way "BSD" is not a clear license information. It merely
> * states, that the module is licensed under one of the compatible BSD
> * license variants. The detailed and correct license information is
> again
> * to be found in the corresponding source files.
> *
> * There are dual licensed components, but when running with Linux it
> is the
> * GPL that is relevant so this is a non issue. Similarly LGPL linked
> with GPL
> * is a GPL combined work.
> *
> * This exists for several reasons
> * 1. So modinfo can show license info for users wanting to vet their
> setup
> * is free
> * 2. So the community can ignore bug reports including proprietary
> modules
> * 3. So vendors can do likewise based on their own policies
> */
> #define MODULE_LICENSE(_license) MODULE_INFO(license, _license)
>
> I have no objections on changing the license if needed but can you
> please tell me what is Ok combos then - I am having hard time when
> trying to select licenses which are acceptable for all.
If you have this in your header:
GPL-2.0-only
Your MODULE tags should read:
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
