On 10/02/2014 11:37 AM, atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Alan Tull <atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Add simple on/off regulator support for ltc2978 and
other pmbus parts supported by ltc2978.c
Signed-off-by: Alan Tull <atull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2: Remove '#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>'
Only one regulator per pmbus device
Get regulator_init_data from pdata or device tree
v3: Support multiple regulators for each chip
Move most code to pmbus_core.c
fixed values for on/off
v4: fix a #endif comment
simplify probe code, remove added switch statement
remove BUG_ON(), add error message and fix num_regulators
v5: Kconfig: update list of supported chips
use "regulator: of: Provide simplified DT parsing method"
remove #include <linux/regulator/of_regulator.h>
remove of_regulator_match
---
drivers/hwmon/pmbus/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++--
drivers/hwmon/pmbus/ltc2978.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/Kconfig b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/Kconfig
index 6e1e493..a674cd8 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/Kconfig
@@ -47,15 +47,22 @@ config SENSORS_LM25066
be called lm25066.
config SENSORS_LTC2978
- tristate "Linear Technologies LTC2974, LTC2978, LTC3880, and LTC3883"
+ tristate "Linear Technologies LTC2978 and compatibles"
default n
help
If you say yes here you get hardware monitoring support for Linear
- Technology LTC2974, LTC2978, LTC3880, and LTC3883.
+ Technology LTC2974, LTC2977, LTC2978, LTC3880, LTC3883, and LTM4676.
This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module will
be called ltc2978.
+config SENSORS_LTC2978_REGULATOR
+ boolean "Regulator support for LTC2978 and compatibles"
+ depends on SENSORS_LTC2978 && REGULATOR
+ help
+ If you say yes here you get regulator support for Linear
+ Technology LTC2974, LTC2977, LTC2978, LTC3880, LTC3883, and LTM4676.
+
config SENSORS_MAX16064
tristate "Maxim MAX16064"
default n
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/ltc2978.c b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/ltc2978.c
index e24ed52..efac4bf 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/ltc2978.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/ltc2978.c
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include <linux/err.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/i2c.h>
+#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
#include "pmbus.h"
enum chips { ltc2974, ltc2977, ltc2978, ltc3880, ltc3883, ltm4676 };
@@ -374,6 +375,19 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id ltc2978_id[] = {
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, ltc2978_id);
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SENSORS_LTC2978_REGULATOR)
+static const struct regulator_desc ltc2978_reg_desc[] = {
+ PMBUS_REGULATOR("vout_en", 0),
+ PMBUS_REGULATOR("vout_en", 1),
+ PMBUS_REGULATOR("vout_en", 2),
+ PMBUS_REGULATOR("vout_en", 3),
+ PMBUS_REGULATOR("vout_en", 4),
+ PMBUS_REGULATOR("vout_en", 5),
+ PMBUS_REGULATOR("vout_en", 6),
+ PMBUS_REGULATOR("vout_en", 7),
+};
+#endif /* CONFIG_SENSORS_LTC2978_REGULATOR */
+
static int ltc2978_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
const struct i2c_device_id *id)
{
@@ -487,6 +501,16 @@ static int ltc2978_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
default:
return -ENODEV;
}
+
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SENSORS_LTC2978_REGULATOR)
+ info->num_regulators = info->pages;
+ info->reg_desc = ltc2978_reg_desc;
+ if (info->num_regulators > ARRAY_SIZE(ltc2978_reg_desc)) {
+ dev_err(&client->dev, "num_regulators too large!");
+ info->num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(ltc2978_reg_desc);
+ }
+#endif
+
return pmbus_do_probe(client, id, info);
}
Unfortunately the code now only compiles in -next, since the following
fields are only defined there.
drivers/hwmon/pmbus/ltc2978.c:380:2: error: unknown field 'of_match' specified in initializer
drivers/hwmon/pmbus/ltc2978.c:380:2: error: unknown field 'regulators_node' specified in initializer
This means I can not apply the code unless I pull in the relevant changes.
Mark, do you have an immutable branch / tag for me to merge ?
If not this patch series will have to wait until the relevant regulator
changes are available in mainline.
On a side note, I am not too happy with the following comment in the
"Provide simplified DT parsing method" patch: "The current code leaks
the phandles for the child nodes, this will be addressed incrementally
and makes no practical difference for FDT anyway as the DT data
structures are never freed".
My use case includes instantiating the LTC chips through devicetree overlays,
which obviously does not work well with leaking DT nodes.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
