Hi Lee,
Thank you for your review!
> From: Lee Jones, Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 12:35 AM
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
>
> > From: Khiem Nguyen <khiem.nguyen.xt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Since the driver supports BD9571MWV PMIC only,
> > this patch makes the functions and data structure become more generic
> > so that it can support other PMIC variants as well.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Khiem Nguyen <khiem.nguyen.xt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [shimoda: rebase and refactor]
>
> This is kind of expected. Please just add Co-developed-by instead.
I got it.
> > Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/bd9571mwv.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > include/linux/mfd/bd9571mwv.h | 18 ++------
> > 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/bd9571mwv.c b/drivers/mfd/bd9571mwv.c
> > index 49e968e..ccf1a60 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/bd9571mwv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/bd9571mwv.c
> > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> > * ROHM BD9571MWV-M MFD driver
> > *
> > * Copyright (C) 2017 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > + * Copyright (C) 2020 Renesas Electronics Corporation
> > *
> > * Based on the TPS65086 driver
> > */
> > @@ -14,6 +15,19 @@
> >
> > #include <linux/mfd/bd9571mwv.h>
> >
> > +/**
>
> This is wrong. Please do not abuse kernel-doc formatting.
Oops. I'll use just "/*" here.
> > + * struct bd957x_data - internal data for the bd957x driverbd957x_data
> > + *
> > + * Internal data to distinguish bd957x variants
> > + */
> > +struct bd957x_data {
>
> Call this bd957x_ddata please.
>
> ddata == driver data.
I got it.
> > + char *part_name;
>
> What is this used for besides a print? Those kinds of log messages
> are usually frowned upon anyway. Probably best to just remove the
> print, along with the variable.
I got it. I'll remove the print.
> > + const struct regmap_config *regmap_config;
> > + const struct regmap_irq_chip *irq_chip;
> > + const struct mfd_cell *cells;
> > + int num_cells;
> > +};
> > +
> > static const struct mfd_cell bd9571mwv_cells[] = {
> > { .name = "bd9571mwv-regulator", },
> > { .name = "bd9571mwv-gpio", },
> > @@ -102,13 +116,21 @@ static struct regmap_irq_chip bd9571mwv_irq_chip = {
> > .num_irqs = ARRAY_SIZE(bd9571mwv_irqs),
> > };
> >
> > -static int bd9571mwv_identify(struct bd9571mwv *bd)
> > +static const struct bd957x_data bd9571mwv_data = {
> > + .part_name = BD9571MWV_PART_NAME,
> > + .regmap_config = &bd9571mwv_regmap_config,
> > + .irq_chip = &bd9571mwv_irq_chip,
> > + .cells = bd9571mwv_cells,
> > + .num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(bd9571mwv_cells),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int bd9571mwv_identify(struct device *dev, struct regmap *regmap,
>
> I guess this function name also needs to change?
>
> And all other occurences of bd9571mwv?
Hmm, "bd957x" prefix is already used on a regulator driver (bd9576-regulator.c)
so that I'm thinking keep "bd9571mwv" is better to avoid confusing.
But, this is not a strong opinion so that if you prefer "bd957x" here,
I'll rename.
> > + const char *part_name)
> > {
> > - struct device *dev = bd->dev;
> > unsigned int value;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - ret = regmap_read(bd->regmap, BD9571MWV_VENDOR_CODE, &value);
> > + ret = regmap_read(regmap, BD9571MWV_VENDOR_CODE, &value);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Failed to read vendor code register (ret=%i)\n",
> > ret);
> > @@ -121,27 +143,20 @@ static int bd9571mwv_identify(struct bd9571mwv *bd)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = regmap_read(bd->regmap, BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE, &value);
> > + ret = regmap_read(regmap, BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE, &value);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Failed to read product code register (ret=%i)\n",
> > ret);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > -
> > - if (value != BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_VAL) {
> > - dev_err(dev, "Invalid product code ID %02x (expected %02x)\n",
> > - value, BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_VAL);
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > -
> > - ret = regmap_read(bd->regmap, BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_REVISION, &value);
> > + ret = regmap_read(regmap, BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_REVISION, &value);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Failed to read revision register (ret=%i)\n",
> > ret);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > - dev_info(dev, "Device: BD9571MWV rev. %d\n", value & 0xff);
> > + dev_info(dev, "Device: %s rev. %d\n", part_name, value & 0xff);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -149,38 +164,48 @@ static int bd9571mwv_identify(struct bd9571mwv *bd)
> > static int bd9571mwv_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > const struct i2c_device_id *ids)
> > {
> > - struct bd9571mwv *bd;
> > - int ret;
> > -
> > - bd = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*bd), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!bd)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > -
> > - i2c_set_clientdata(client, bd);
> > - bd->dev = &client->dev;
> > - bd->irq = client->irq;
> > + const struct bd957x_data *data;
>
> ddata
I'll change it.
> > + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
> > + struct regmap *regmap;
> > + struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_data;
> > + int ret, irq = client->irq;
> > +
> > + /* Read the PMIC product code */
> > + ret = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "failed reading at 0x%02x\n",
> > + BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE);
>
> "Failed to read product code" is more user friendly.
I got it. Thank you for your suggestion.
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + switch (ret) {
> > + case BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_VAL:
>
> Suggest:
>
> s/BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE/BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_CMD/
> then
> s/BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_VAL/BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE/
Hmm, if we use "BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_CMD", this causes
inconsistence other registers' definitions. So, perhaps,
BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_BD9571MWV (and BD9571MWV_PRODUCT_CODE_BD9574MWF
in the patch 12/12) instead of "_VAL" are better.
> > + data = &bd9571mwv_data;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + dev_err(dev, "Unsupported device 0x%x\n", ret);
> > + return -ENOENT;
>
> ENOENT == "No such file or directory"
>
> I think you mean -ENODEV.
Oops. I'll fix it.
> > + }
> >
> > - bd->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(client, &bd9571mwv_regmap_config);
> > - if (IS_ERR(bd->regmap)) {
> > - dev_err(bd->dev, "Failed to initialize register map\n");
> > - return PTR_ERR(bd->regmap);
> > + regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(client, data->regmap_config);
> > + if (IS_ERR(regmap)) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize register map\n");
> > + return PTR_ERR(regmap);
> > }
> >
> > - ret = bd9571mwv_identify(bd);
> > + ret = bd9571mwv_identify(dev, regmap, data->part_name);
>
> Just pass ddata, then you'll have 'dev' and 'regmap'.
Now "bd9571mwv_ddata" is const and doesn't have 'dev' and 'regmap'.
Does this means I should not use const and add device and regmap into
struct bd957x_ddata?
> I'd remove 'part_name' completely.
I got it.
Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda
