Hi,
Thanks a lot for quick review!
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, at 15:10, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 02:09:27PM +0200, Sven Peter wrote:
>> Apple M1 machines come with a variant of the TI TPS6598x and will need
>> some changes to the current logic. Let's prepare for that by setting up
>> the infrastructure required to support different variants of this chip
>> identified by the DT compatible.
>
> I think in this case it would make sense to just squash this into the
> next patch.
Sure, and taking into account your review for the later patches I will
probably squash most of them into a single commit now.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Sven Peter <sven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/usb/typec/tipd/core.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tipd/core.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tipd/core.c
>> index 21b3ae25c76d..656020e7f533 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/typec/tipd/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tipd/core.c
>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>> #include <linux/i2c.h>
>> #include <linux/acpi.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>> #include <linux/power_supply.h>
>> #include <linux/regmap.h>
>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> @@ -76,6 +77,10 @@ static const char *const modes[] = {
>> /* Unrecognized commands will be replaced with "!CMD" */
>> #define INVALID_CMD(_cmd_) (_cmd_ == 0x444d4321)
>>
>> +struct tps6598x_hw {
>> +};
>
> Black line here.
>
>> +static const struct tps6598x_hw ti_tps6598x_data;
>> +
>> struct tps6598x {
>> struct device *dev;
>> struct regmap *regmap;
>> @@ -91,6 +96,8 @@ struct tps6598x {
>> struct power_supply *psy;
>> struct power_supply_desc psy_desc;
>> enum power_supply_usb_type usb_type;
>> +
>> + const struct tps6598x_hw *hw;
>> };
>>
>> static enum power_supply_property tps6598x_psy_props[] = {
>> @@ -590,6 +597,13 @@ static int tps6598x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>> if (!tps)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> + if (client->dev.of_node)
>> + tps->hw = of_device_get_match_data(&client->dev);
>> + else
>> + tps->hw = &ti_tps6598x_data;
>> + if (!tps->hw)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> tps->hw = of_device_get_match_data(&client->dev);
> if (!tps->hw)
> tps->hw = &ti_tps6598x_data;
>
Ah yes, that's indeed much nicer!
>> mutex_init(&tps->lock);
>> tps->dev = &client->dev;
>>
>> @@ -729,8 +743,11 @@ static int tps6598x_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static const struct tps6598x_hw ti_tps6598x_data = {
>> +};
>
> You could also move that above tps6598x_probe() and get rid of the
> forward declaration.
Ack.
Best,
Sven
