On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 03:59:41PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/2/21 15:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:50 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Pass tps68470_regulator_platform_data to the tps68470-regulator
> >> MFD-cell, specifying the voltages of the various regulators and
> >> tying the regulators to the sensor supplies so that sensors which use
> >> the TPS68470 can find their regulators.
> >>
> >> Since the voltages and supply connections are board-specific, this
> >> introduces a DMI matches int3472_tps68470_board_data struct which
> >> contains the necessary per-board info.
> >>
> >> This per-board info also includes GPIO lookup information for the
> >> sensor IO lines which may be connected to the tps68470 GPIOs.
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> + board_data = int3472_tps68470_get_board_data(dev_name(&client->dev));
> >> + if (!board_data) {
> >> + dev_err(&client->dev, "No board-data found for this laptop/tablet model\n");
> >> + return -ENODEV;
> >
> > It's fine to use dev_err_probe() for known error codes.
> >
> >> + }
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> + cells[1].platform_data = (void *)board_data->tps68470_regulator_pdata;
> >
> > Do we need casting?
>
> Yes, the cast casts away a "const", the const is correct
> since the data only ever gets read by the regulator driver,
> but platform_data pointers are normally not const, so it
> is either the cast, or loose the const on the definition
> of the struct to which board_data->tps68470_regulator_pdata
> points...
>
> So not good choice here really, only chosing between bad
> options and I picked the lets do the cast "least worse"
> option (at least to me). I'm open to changing this.
Maybe a comment explaining this briefly?
--
Sakari Ailus
