On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:09:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:46 PM Heikki Krogerus
> <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Software nodes provide two features that we will need later.
> > 1) Software nodes can have references to other software nodes.
> > 2) Software nodes can exist before a device entry is created.
>
> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/pci.h>
>
> I understand your attitude to ordering here, but we already have it
> ordered, why not to keep it that way?
Sure. I'll keep the order.
> > -static struct i2c_client *cht_int33fe_find_max17047(void)
> > -{
> > - struct i2c_client *max17047 = NULL;
> > -
> > - i2c_for_each_dev(&max17047, cht_int33fe_check_for_max17047);
> > - return max17047;
> > -}
>
> This sounds like a cleanup patch before actual change.
> And I'm not sure, do we need to remove this function?
>
> > +static int
> > +cht_int33fe_max17047(struct device *dev, struct cht_int33fe_data *data)
> > +{
> > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = data->node[INT33FE_NODE_MAX17047];
> > + struct i2c_client *max17047 = NULL;
> > + struct i2c_board_info board_info;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + i2c_for_each_dev(&max17047, cht_int33fe_check_for_max17047);
> > + if (max17047) {
> > + /* Pre-existing i2c-client for the max17047, add device-props */
> > + max17047->dev.fwnode->secondary = fwnode;
> > + /* And re-probe to get the new device-props applied. */
> > + ret = device_reprobe(&max17047->dev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_warn(dev, "Reprobing max17047 error: %d\n", ret);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + memset(&board_info, 0, sizeof(board_info));
> > + strlcpy(board_info.type, "max17047", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> > + board_info.dev_name = "max17047";
> > + board_info.fwnode = fwnode;
> > + data->max17047 = i2c_acpi_new_device(dev, 1, &board_info);
> > + if (IS_ERR(data->max17047))
> > + return PTR_ERR(data->max17047);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> This looks like a split from the original code with some changes.
> Perhaps, split patch first.
>
> > /* Work around BIOS bug, see comment on cht_int33fe_find_max17047 */
>
> After this patch, the comment here become outdated, care to fix?
>
> > + ret = cht_int33fe_max17047(dev, data);
>
> Seems like the verb is missed in the name of the function.
Yeah, I never meant to rename the function. I'll just keep the
function name as cht_int33fe_find_max17047.
thanks,
--
heikki
