Re: [PATCH V2 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024

From: Laxman Dewangan
Date: Wed Jan 13 2016 - 04:11:05 EST

On Wednesday 13 January 2016 06:17 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 12.01.2016 18:17, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

+ }
+ dev_dbg(chip->dev, "NVERC = 0x%02x\n", val);
+ for (i = 0; i < 8; ++i) {
+ if (val & BIT(i))
+ dev_info(chip->dev, "NVERC: %s\n", max77620_nverc[i]);
You are still printing two dev_info (OTP, ES) and here NVERC (probably
one?). This will be printed on each boot, over and over, till the user
will learn it and will remember it forever :).

From my point of view: one dev_info for one probed device.

I don't know if others agree with that, though. What's your opinion Lee?

OK, I make single line print for OTP and ES version.
I remove the NVREC reading and printing as this is read on clear and better to move on uboot for this prints.

+ ret = regmap_add_irq_chip(chip->rmap[MAX77620_PWR_SLAVE],
+ chip->chip_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_SHARED, chip->irq_base,
Why do you need IRQF_SHARED?

In one of my design, I have three PMICs, one MAX77620, two MAX77621. MAX77621 alert an MAX77620 interrupt line is tied and going to single interrupt of SoC.

To register same interrupt from all driver, I made it SHARED.

This is per discussion on the other patch
regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning

+ &max77620_top_irq_chip, &chip->top_irq_data);
More tabs needed for indentation of arguments.

Actually the alignment of arguments here is mixed. Sometimes arguments
are aligned with opening parenthesis, mostly not. Can you make it
consistent - always aligned?

In my 3rd patch, I tried to align it little more where is possible. But I feel that all these indenting is more over individual choice. Example, I added one more indent in below example to look better.

ret = max77620_reg_update(chip->dev, MAX77620_PWR_SLAVE,