Re: [RESEND PATCH V2 1/2] input: misc: da9063: OnKey driver

[Lee Jones]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote:

> 
> On 28 April 2015 12:57 Lee Jones [mailto:lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, S Twiss wrote:
> > 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c         |  55 +++++++++
> > >  include/linux/mfd/da9063/pdata.h  |   1 +
> > 
> > This should be a seperate patch.
> > 
> 
> Okay, done this now. Added a new PATCH 3/3
> 
> > >  static struct resource da9063_onkey_resources[] = {
> > >  	{
> > > +		.name	= "ONKEY",
> > >  		.start	= DA9063_IRQ_ONKEY,
> > >  		.end	= DA9063_IRQ_ONKEY,
> > >  		.flags	= IORESOURCE_IRQ,
> > > @@ -97,6 +98,7 @@ static const struct mfd_cell da9063_devs[] = {
> > >  		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_ONKEY,
> > >  		.num_resources	=
> > ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_onkey_resources),
> > >  		.resources	= da9063_onkey_resources,
> > > +		.of_compatible = "dlg,da9063-onkey",
> > >  	},
> > >  	{
> > >  		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_RTC,
> > 
> > This is lowercase, so why does "ONKEY" have to be uppercase?
> > 
> 
> No real reason why this is uppercase in favour of lowercase except it
> is following the convention of the existing DA9063 driver code.
> Currently the DA9063 uses uppercase for its naming, there are several
> others components that use the same uppercase convention, e.g. the
> RTC alarm and tick interrupt and the hardware LDO limit:
> 
> > cat /proc/interrupts | grep 9063
> 384:          0          0          0          0  da9063-irq   0  ONKEY
> 385:          0          2          0          0  da9063-irq   1  ALARM
> 387:          0         30          0          0  da9063-irq   3  HWMON
> 392:          0          0          0          0  da9063-irq   8  LDO_LIM
> 
> I was going to leave this uppercase, but I can easily change it if
> this is necessary.
> 
> > >  	if (ret)
> > >  		dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n");
> > >
> > > +
> > 
> > Tut tut!
> > 
> > >  	return ret;
> > >  }
> 
> I've changed that to remove the lazy fall-through on the error path.
> It now has the following form:
> 
> @@ -229,9 +229,10 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned int irq)
>         ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs,
>                               ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs), NULL, da9063->irq_base,
>                               NULL);
> -       if (ret)
> +       if (ret) {
>                 dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n");
> -
> +               return ret;
> +       }
>  
>         return ret;
>  }

Sorry, that's not what I meant.

The fall-through is perfectly fine.  I was tutting because you added
an unrelated 'clean-up'.

> Thanks for the review comments.
> The next patch set for DA9063 will follow shortly.
> 
> Regards,
> Steve

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/