Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: tps65219: Make poweroff handler conditional on system-power-controller

[Akashdeep Kaur]

On 19/03/26 16:54, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2026, Akashdeep Kaur wrote:
>
> > Currently, the TPS65219 driver unconditionally registers a poweroff
> > handler. This causes issues on systems where a different component
> > (such as TF-A firmware) should handle system poweroff instead.
> >
> > Make the poweroff handler registration conditional based on the
> > "system-power-controller" device tree property. This follows the
> > standard kernel pattern where only the designated power controller
> > registers for system poweroff operations.
> >
> > On systems where the property is absent, the PMIC will not register
> > a poweroff handler, allowing other poweroff mechanisms to function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Akashdeep Kaur <a-kaur@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/mfd/tps65219.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> >   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65219.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65219.c
> > index 7275dcdb7c44..beb816707d8f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65219.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65219.c
> > @@ -541,13 +541,19 @@ static int tps65219_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
...
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Only register PMIC power-off handler if system-power-controller
> > +	 * property is present.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (of_device_is_system_power_controller(tps->dev->of_node)) {
>
> The function name `of_device_is_system_power_controller()` is quite
> self-descriptive. Is this comment really necessary? The code seems clear
> enough without it.

Hi Lee, yes, i agree, Removed the comment.

Thanks,
Akashdeep Kaur
> > +		ret = devm_register_power_off_handler(tps->dev,
> > +						      tps65219_power_off_handler,
> > +						      tps);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return dev_err_probe(tps->dev, ret,
> > +					"failed to register power-off handler\n");
> >   	}
> > +
> >   	return 0;
> >   }
> >   
> > --
> > 2.34.1