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

[Ksenija StanojeviÄ]

Hi All,

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Ksenija StanojeviÄ
<ksenija.stanojevic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

Can someone with imx23 board send me /proc/interrupts log, I
need irq numbers...

Thanks,
Ksenija