Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: MAX77686: Add Maxim 77686 regulatordriver

[jonghwa3 . lee]

On 2012ë 05ì 12ì 19:43, Mark Brown wrote:
Hi,Mark,
I'm sorry my reply is too late.

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 03:50:44PM +0900, Jonghwa Lee wrote:
>
>> +/* LDO3 ~ 5, 9 ~ 14, 16 ~ 26 (uV) */
>> +static const struct voltage_map_desc ldo_voltage_map_desc = {
>> +	.min = 800000,	.max = 3950000,	.step = 50000,	.n_bits = 6,
>> +};
>
> As I indicated I'd do in reply to Yadwinder Singh Brar's posting of a
> version of this driver the other day this is now factored out into the
> core - you should be able to set this all up using regulator_desc and
> regulator_map_voltage_linear() which will appear in -next on Monday (I
> appreciate it's not something you should have been aware of!).  This
> should also allow you to use regulator_{set,get}_voltage_regmap.
>

I'll updated it as soon as those patches are merged to mainline.

>> +	[MAX77686_EN32KHZ_AP] = NULL,
>> +	[MAX77686_EN32KHZ_CP] = NULL,
>> +	[MAX77686_P32KH] = NULL,
>
> These should be being moved over to the generic clock API now it's in
> mainline.
>
I couldn't check this yet, i'll retouch that.
>> +/*
>> + * TODO
>> + * Reaction to the LP/Standby for each regulator should be defined by
>> + * each consumer, not by the regulator device driver if it depends
>> + * on which device is attached to which regulator. Here we are
>> + * creating possible PM-wise regression with board changes.Also,
>> + * we can do the same effect without creating issues with board
>> + * changes by carefully defining .state_mem at bsp and suspend ops
>> + * callbacks.
>> + */
>
> The various set_suspend() calls are supposed to be for this, though in
> practice they're rarely used in systems so we probably need a bunch of
> work there.  We certainly don't have any aribtration between consumers
> yet.
>

When system goes into suspended mode, it doesn't need any detail to
enable or disable a regulator in MAX77686. So i think it'll be fine to
use enable/diable function whichever situation we are in. To prevent
confusion i just removed function pointers for suspending.

>> +static int max77686_reg_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct max77686_data *max77686 = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
>> +	int ret, reg, mask, pattern;
>> +	u8 val;
>> +
>> +	ret = max77686_get_enable_register(rdev, &reg, &mask, &pattern);
>> +	if (ret == -EINVAL)
>> +		return 1; /* "not controllable" */
>
> Just have separate ops structures for these regulators.
>

I think that procedure is useless, so i removed it.

>> +static int max77686_get_voltage_register(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
>> +		int *_reg, int *_shift, int *_mask)
>
>> +static int max77686_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>> +{
>
> These look like they should be done using regulator_get_voltage_regmap()
> so you only need data in the driver.
>

This also will be updated ,,

>> +static inline int max77686_get_voltage_proper_val(
>> +		const struct voltage_map_desc *desc,
>> +		int min_vol, int max_vol)
>
> Pretty big function for inline, and the core will do this for you anyway
> if you use the new features I was mentioning further up.
>

I removed it, it isn't needed any more.

>> +	switch (rid) {
>> +	case MAX77686_BUCK2 ... MAX77686_BUCK4:
>> +		if (org < i)
>> +			udelay(DIV_ROUND_UP(desc->step * (i - org),
>> +						max77686->ramp_delay * 1000));
>> +		break;
>> +	case MAX77686_BUCK1:
>> +	case MAX77686_BUCK5 ... MAX77686_BUCK9:
>> +		/* Unconditionally 100 mV/us */
>> +		if (org < i)
>> +			udelay(DIV_ROUND_UP(desc->step * (i - org), 100000));
>> +		break;
>> +	default:
>> +		break;
>> +	}
>
> Implement set_voltage_time_sel() instead and let the core do the delays.
>

I applied it. And i also converted set/get_voltage() to
set/get_voltage_sel().

>> +static int max77686_reg_do_nothing(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>> +{
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>
> Remove this, you should never have empty functions like this.
>

Removed.

>> +	if (!pdata) {
>> +		dev_err(pdev->dev.parent, "No platform init data supplied.\n");
>> +		return -ENODEV;
>> +	}
>
> You should just carry on unless there's some strong device-specific
> reason for not doing so.
>

Modified driver to keep probing whether pdata exists or not.

>> +	max77686 = kzalloc(sizeof(struct max77686_data), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!max77686)
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>
> devm_kzalloc().
>

Modified.

>> +	size = sizeof(struct regulator_dev *) * pdata->num_regulators;
>> +	max77686->rdev = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!max77686->rdev) {
>> +		kfree(max77686);
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +	}
>
> You should just unconditionally register all regulators the chip has,
> this allows users to inspect the state of the regulators even if they're
> not being controlled by software.
>

Modified. Now driver registers all regulator unconditionally.

>> +	max77686->opmode_data = pdata->opmode_data;
>
> Shouldn't this be being handled by regulator_set_mode()?  If not what
> does it do?
>

I consider this for a while, but i decided just let it be. Because
opmode_data is only used in max77686_get_enable_register() to get
proper opcode value. To use regulator_set_mode, it needs too much
modification. Is there some strict purpose to use that, i'll change it.

>> +	printk(PMIC_DEBUG "%s: DEVICE ID=0x%x\n", __func__, data);
>
> This needs cleaning up - it should at least be a dev_ printk.
>
>> +static int __init max77686_pmic_init(void)
>> +{
>> +	printk(PMIC_DEBUG "%s\n", __func__);
>
> This can be removed too.

Those all were cleaned.


Best regards,
LEE
--
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/