Re: [PATCH] regulator: as3711: Use a static of_regulator_match tablefor of_regulator_match

From: Guennadi Liakhovetski
Date: Wed Apr 17 2013 - 01:35:40 EST


Hi Axel

Thanks for the patch

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Axel Lin wrote:

> The same table can be used for multiple instance of pdev, so we don't need to
> allocate memory for of_regulator_match table per pdev.
>
> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c | 46 ++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c
> index 0539b3e..dd1a089 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/as3711-regulator.c
> @@ -278,52 +278,44 @@ static struct as3711_regulator_info as3711_reg_info[] = {
>
> #define AS3711_REGULATOR_NUM ARRAY_SIZE(as3711_reg_info)
>
> -static const char *as3711_regulator_of_names[AS3711_REGULATOR_NUM] = {
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_SD_1] = "sd1",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_SD_2] = "sd2",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_SD_3] = "sd3",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_SD_4] = "sd4",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_1] = "ldo1",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_2] = "ldo2",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_3] = "ldo3",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_4] = "ldo4",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_5] = "ldo5",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_6] = "ldo6",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_7] = "ldo7",
> - [AS3711_REGULATOR_LDO_8] = "ldo8",
> +static struct of_regulator_match as3711_regulator_matches[] = {
> + { .name = "sd1" },
> + { .name = "sd2" },
> + { .name = "sd3" },
> + { .name = "sd4" },
> + { .name = "ldo1" },
> + { .name = "ldo2" },
> + { .name = "ldo3" },
> + { .name = "ldo4" },
> + { .name = "ldo5" },
> + { .name = "ldo6" },
> + { .name = "ldo7" },
> + { .name = "ldo8" },

Please keep explicit indices to match this array's members to the
as3711_reg_info[] array.

> };
>
> static int as3711_regulator_parse_dt(struct device *dev,
> struct device_node **of_node, const int count)
> {
> struct as3711_regulator_pdata *pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev);
> - struct device_node *regulators =
> - of_find_node_by_name(dev->parent->of_node, "regulators");
> - struct of_regulator_match *matches, *match;
> + struct device_node *regulators;
> + struct of_regulator_match *match;
> int ret, i;
>
> + regulators = of_find_node_by_name(dev->parent->of_node, "regulators");

What was wrong with the original code? I don't see a difference, this
seems to be an unrelated stylistic change, please, don't do this.

> if (!regulators) {
> dev_err(dev, "regulator node not found\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> - matches = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*matches) * count, GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!matches)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> -
> - for (i = 0, match = matches; i < count; i++, match++) {
> - match->name = as3711_regulator_of_names[i];
> - match->driver_data = as3711_reg_info + i;

This is a separate change. I was probably copy-pasting this parsing from
some other driver and didn't realise, that .driver_data isn't actually
used. And that was the reason why I copied the array at run-time. I won't
play a patch-police here, asking you to split this into a separate patch,
but please, could you at least make a remark in the commit message,
confirming my understanding. Or maybe I'm wrong and .driver_data is
needed? Then the whole your patch might not be right.

> - }
> -
> - ret = of_regulator_match(dev->parent, regulators, matches, count);
> + ret = of_regulator_match(dev->parent, regulators,
> + as3711_regulator_matches, count);
> of_node_put(regulators);
> if (ret < 0) {
> dev_err(dev, "Error parsing regulator init data: %d\n", ret);
> return ret;
> }
>
> - for (i = 0, match = matches; i < count; i++, match++)
> + for (i = 0, match = as3711_regulator_matches; i < count; i++, match++)
> if (match->of_node) {
> pdata->init_data[i] = match->init_data;
> of_node[i] = match->of_node;
> --
> 1.7.10.4

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
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/