RE: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: dt: tps6586x: Add power off control

[Bill Huang]

nvpublic
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:16:28AM -0700, Bill Huang wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c b/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c
> [...]
> > @@ -505,6 +519,11 @@ static int __devinit tps6586x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >  		goto err_add_devs;
> >  	}
> >
> > +	tps6586x_dev = &client->dev;
> > +
> > +	if (pdata->pm_off && !pm_power_off)
> > +		pm_power_off = tps6586x_power_off;
> > +
> 
> I think the assignment of tps6586x_dev needs to go inside the if block as well. Otherwise it might be
> overwritten by another instance for systems that actually have more than one tps6586x. Since currently
> the driver can't be built as a module it probably makes little sense to clean this up in .remove(),
> but it might still be worth adding so it isn't forgotten if and when somebody tries to convert the
> driver to a module.
> 
Thanks, good point.

> I should note that I don't like very much how the pm_power_off works.
> Maybe this should really be changed to allow passing a context for the function to work from.
> Something like:
> 
> 	pm_power_off = tps6586x_power_off;
> 	pm_power_off_data = &client->dev;
> 
> Where pm_power_off() would receive pm_power_off_data as an argument.
> 
> Even that's not very pretty. On the other hand this doesn't really buy us much because only the
> storage location of the variable would change and nothing else. But it would still make the
> association of the data clearer.
> 
> Thierry
> 
> * Unknown Key
> * 0x7F3EB3A1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/