Kyungmin Park wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 09:15:36AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >>
> >> > Seems almost same between the operation of max8649 and max8952 except
> >> output
> >> > voltage range.
> >>
> >> > How do you think that can support max8952 with small modifying
max8649?
> >>
> >> Take a look at something like the WM831x drivers for how you can handle
> >> multiple devices with one driver - you can register I2C IDs for
multiple
> >> devices and then select behaviour based on the name that was quoted.
> >
> > MM...but I'm not sure if I can submit other patch for max8952...
> > Actually, Mr. Ham's max8952 code has been applied by Liam.
> >
> > Anyway, could you please see below patch?
> > Basic functions are tested on the board...
> >
> >
> > From: Changhwan Youn <chaos.youn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max8649.c b/drivers/regulator/max8649.c
> > index 4520ace..a13bf1d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/regulator/max8649.c
> > +++ b/drivers/regulator/max8649.c
(snip)
> > @@ -311,13 +323,13 @@ static int __devinit
max8649_regulator_probe(struct
> > i2c_client *client,
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = max8649_reg_read(info->i2c, MAX8649_CHIP_ID1);
> > + ret = max8649_reg_read(info->i2c, MAX8649_CHIP_ID2);
> Why do you read the ID2? original code read the ID1. With this change
> don't brake the max8649?
It's no problem, because it is used only in the following printout.
And the reason of changing is that the CHIP_ID1 value of max8649 and max
8952 is same by 0x20.
So cannot distinguish them. If change to CHIP_ID2, can separate them in the
printout.
(The CHIP_ID2 value of max 8649 is '0x0D', max8952 is '0x1A')
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > dev_err(info->dev, "Failed to detect ID of MAX8649:%d\n",
> > ret);
> > goto out;
> > }
> > - dev_info(info->dev, "Detected MAX8649 (ID:%x)\n", ret);
> > + dev_info(info->dev, "Detected %s (ID:%x)\n", id->name, ret);
> >
> > /* enable VID0 & VID1 */
> > max8649_set_bits(info->i2c, MAX8649_CONTROL, MAX8649_VID_MASK,
> 0);
> > @@ -354,7 +366,7 @@ static int __devinit max8649_regulator_probe(struct
> > i2c_client *client,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - dev_info(info->dev, "Max8649 regulator device is detected.\n");
> > + dev_info(info->dev, "%s regulator device is detected.\n",
id->name);
> > return 0;
> > out:
> > kfree(info);
> > @@ -376,6 +388,7 @@ static int __devexit max8649_regulator_remove(struct
> > i2c_client *client)
> >
> > static const struct i2c_device_id max8649_id[] = {
> > { "max8649", 0 },
> > + { "max8952", 0 },
> > { }
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max8649_id);
> > --
> > 1.6.2.5
> >
> >
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
