Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mfd: mxs-lradc: Add support for mxs-lradc MFD

[Ksenija StanojeviÄ]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> hat am 14. Juli 2016 um 17:38 geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> On 07/13/2016 02:49 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > On Fri, 01 Jul 2016, Harald Geyer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Ksenija!
>> >>
>> >> Ksenija StanojeviÄ writes:
>> >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>>> +static int mxs_lradc_add_device(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> >>>>> +                             struct mxs_lradc *lradc, char *name, int
>> >>>>> i)
>> >>>>> +{
>> >>>>> +     struct mfd_cell *cell;
>> >>>>> +
>> >>>>> +     cell = &lradc->cells[i];
>> >>>>> +     cell->name = name;
>> >>>>> +     cell->platform_data = lradc;
>> >>>>> +     cell->pdata_size = sizeof(*lradc);
>> >>>>> +
>> >>>>> +     return devm_mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, -1, cell, 1, NULL, 0,
>> >>>>> NULL);
>> >>>>> +}
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please don't roll your own API.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Use 'struct mfd_cell' like everyone else does.
>> >>>
>> >>> It has been suggested in previous reviews to use separate function to
>> >>> register mfd device, and to make mfd_cell allocate dynamically because
>> >>> struc mxs-lradc is allocated dynamically.
>> >>> But I can revrse changes and make mfd_cells allocate staticaly
>> >>> wthout separate function.
>> >>
>> >> I think making mfd_cells members of struct mxs-lradc will address all
>> >> review comments.
>> >
>> > No, please don't do that either.
>> >
>> It'd be nice if you explained in detail why not. Otherwise this is just
>> empty splat.
>
> since there is no reply, here is my guess:

Sorry for the delay, I'm currently working on it. I will post another
version soon.

> static const struct mfd_cell mxs_lradc_devs[] = {
>         {
>                 .name = DRIVER_NAME_ADC,
>         },
>         {
>                 .name = DRIVER_NAME_TS,
>         },
> };
>
> But i'm not sure if we need of_compatible defined here. The intension of this
> patch series is to keep the DT binding.

I think it needs .resources because in next version DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED
will be used.

> @Lee: Could you please give us a feedback?
>
> @Ksenija: Still motivated for next round?
>
> Regards
> Stefan
>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Marek Vasut

Regards,
Ksenija