Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] mfd: da9063: Register RTC only on DA9063L

[Lee Jones]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018, Marek Vasut wrote:

> The DA9063L does not contain RTC block, unlike the full DA9063.
> Split the RTC block into separate mfd cell and register it only
> on DA9063.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> V2: No change
> V3: Rework of mfd: da9063: Disallow RTC on DA9063L
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> index eebca3442cf3..b05910c797af 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ static struct resource da9063_hwmon_resources[] = {
>  };
>  
>  
> -static const struct mfd_cell da9063_devs[] = {
> +static const struct mfd_cell da9063_common_devs[] = {
>  	{
>  		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_REGULATORS,

Appreciate that these are historical, but these device name defines
make me shudder.  They only serve to act as an obfuscation layer when
debugging at platform level.  Please consider getting rid of them.

>  		.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_regulators_resources),
> @@ -100,15 +100,19 @@ static const struct mfd_cell da9063_devs[] = {
>  		.resources	= da9063_onkey_resources,
>  		.of_compatible = "dlg,da9063-onkey",
>  	},
> +	{
> +		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION,
> +	},

Place this on a single line please.

        { .name	= DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION },

> +};
> +
> +/* Only present on DA9063 , not on DA9063L */
> +static const struct mfd_cell da9063_devs[] = {
>  	{
>  		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_RTC,
>  		.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_rtc_resources),
>  		.resources	= da9063_rtc_resources,
>  		.of_compatible	= "dlg,da9063-rtc",
>  	},
> -	{
> -		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION,
> -	},
>  };
>  
>  static int da9063_clear_fault_log(struct da9063 *da9063)
> @@ -225,16 +229,28 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned int irq)
>  
>  	da9063->irq_base = regmap_irq_chip_get_base(da9063->regmap_irq);
>  
> -	ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs,
> -			      ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs), NULL, da9063->irq_base,
> -			      NULL);
> +	ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_common_devs,

Please consider updating the -1's in this file with the appropriate
define in a separate patch.

> +			      ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_common_devs),
> +			      NULL, da9063->irq_base, NULL);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n");
>  		goto err_irq_exit;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (da9063->type == PMIC_TYPE_DA9063) {
> +		ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs,
> +				      ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs),
> +				      NULL, da9063->irq_base, NULL);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n");

Better to be more general here.

"Failed to add child devices" or such.

Users don't tend to care about MFD cells.

> +			goto err_mfd_cleanup;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	return ret;
>  
> +err_mfd_cleanup:
> +	mfd_remove_devices(da9063->dev);

Any reason why you can't use devm_*?

>  err_irq_exit:
>  	da9063_irq_exit(da9063);
>  	return ret;

-- 
Lee Jones [æçæ]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog