Hi Shimoda-san,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:10 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda
<yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:26 PM
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda
> > <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > index 80c6ef0..57bdb6a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/bd9571mwv.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/bd9571mwv.c
> >
> > > @@ -127,13 +137,12 @@ static int bd9571mwv_identify(struct bd9571mwv *bd)
> > > ret);
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > > -
> > > - if (value != BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_VAL) {
> > > + /* Confirm the product code */
> > > + if (value != bd->data->product_code_val) {
> > > dev_err(dev, "Invalid product code ID %02x (expected %02x)\n",
> > > - value, BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_VAL);
> > > + value, bd->data->product_code_val);
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> >
> > Reading the product code register, and checking the product code value
> > can be removed, as bd9571mwv_probe() has verified it already.
>
> Indeed. I'll remove this.
OK.
> > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/bd9571mwv.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/bd9571mwv.h
> > > + */
> > > +struct bd957x_data {
> > > + int product_code_val;
> >
> > unsigned int?
>
> We can remove this member.
True.
> Or, keeping this member and then we check the product code by this member
> instead of switch() like below?
>
> /* No build test, JFYI */
> struct bd957x_data *data_array[] = {
> &bd9571mwv_data,
> &bd9574mwf_data,
> };
>
> for (i = 0; I < ARRAY_SIZE(data_array); i++) {
> if (val == data_array[i].product_code_val) {
> bd->data = data_array[i];
> break;
> }
> }
Given we probably won't have more than a handful variants, I'm
leaning towards the switch() approach.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
