Hi,
On 1/6/25 4:57 PM, Andrew Davis wrote:
On 1/6/25 4:02 PM, Shree Ramamoorthy wrote:
Hi,
On 1/4/2025 12:45 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
On 26/12/2024 23:54, Shree Ramamoorthy wrote:
Factor register_regulators() and request_irqs() out into smaller
functions.
These 2 helper functions are used in the next restructure probe()
patch to
go through the common (overlapping) regulators and irqs first, then
the
device-specific structs identifed in the chip_data struct.
Signed-off-by: Shree Ramamoorthy <s-ramamoorthy@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/regulator/tps65219-regulator.c | 64
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps65219-regulator.c
b/drivers/regulator/tps65219-regulator.c
index 13f0e68d8e85..8469ee89802c 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/tps65219-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/tps65219-regulator.c
@@ -346,6 +346,70 @@ static struct chip_data chip_info_table[] = {
},
};
+static int tps65219_register_regulators(const struct
regulator_desc *regulators,
+ struct tps65219 *tps,
+ struct device *dev,
+ struct regulator_config config,
+ unsigned int arr_size)
+{
+ int i;
+ struct regulator_dev *rdev;
reverse xmas tree?
Applied reverse xmas tree style to this file & will review other
files as well for this.
+
+ config.driver_data = tps;
+ config.dev = tps->dev;
+ config.regmap = tps->regmap;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < arr_size; i++) {
+ rdev = devm_regulator_register(dev, ®ulators[i],
+ &config);
+ if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
+ dev_err(tps->dev,
+ "Failed to register %s regulator\n",
+ regulators[i].name);
+
+ return PTR_ERR(rdev);
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int tps65219_request_irqs(struct
tps65219_regulator_irq_type *irq_types,
+ struct tps65219 *tps, struct platform_device *pdev,
+ struct tps65219_regulator_irq_data *irq_data,
+ unsigned int arr_size)
+{
+ int i;
+ int irq;
+ int error;
+ struct tps65219_regulator_irq_type *irq_type;
here too.
+
+ for (i = 0; i < arr_size; ++i) {
+ irq_type = &irq_types[i];
+
unnecessary new line.
+ irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, irq_type->irq_name);
+ if (irq < 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ irq_data[i].dev = tps->dev;
+ irq_data[i].type = irq_type;
+
here too
Removed both new lines.
+ error = devm_request_threaded_irq(tps->dev, irq, NULL,
+ tps65219_regulator_irq_handler,
+ IRQF_ONESHOT,
+ irq_type->irq_name,
+ &irq_data[i]);
+ if (error) {
+ dev_err(tps->dev,
+ "Failed to request %s IRQ %d: %d\n",
+ irq_type->irq_name, irq, error);
+ return error;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int tps65219_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct tps65219 *tps = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
This patch by itself will complain during build as there are no
users for
these functions.
Could you please squash patches 6 and 7?
I kept patch 6 and 7 separate as the diff was hard to read &
the git diff options did not resolve this. Is there a way to keep
these 2 patches
separate for user readability and avoid the build error? Or just
squash them to
prevent build errors knowing the diff will be hard to read? Thank you
for your help!
Instead of splitting the adding and the using of the functions, could you
split tps65219_register_regulators() and tps65219_request_irqs() into
their
own patches? Each patch should add and also make use of the added
function.
Andrew
I was able to split up the 2 helper functions & usage into their own patches. The diff is clean
except for a mistaken new function, but it's easy to read compared to squashing this patch with 7/7.
--
Best,
Shree Ramamoorthy
PMIC Software Engineer
