Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] regulator: mt6358: Add support for MT6358 regulator

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 01:21:55PM +0800, Hsin-Hsiung Wang wrote:

> +static const u32 vmch_voltages[] = {
> +	2900000, 3000000, 3300000,
> +};

> +static const u32 vemc_voltages[] = {
> +	2900000, 3000000, 3300000,
> +};

Several of these tables appear to be identical.

> +static inline unsigned int mt6358_map_mode(unsigned int mode)
> +{
> +	return mode == MT6358_BUCK_MODE_AUTO ?
> +		REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL : REGULATOR_MODE_FAST;
> +}

There is no need for this to be an inline and please write normal
conditional statements to improve legibility.  There's other examples in
the driver.

> +static int mt6358_get_buck_voltage_sel(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> +{
> +	int ret, regval;
> +	struct mt6358_regulator_info *info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
> +
> +	ret = regmap_read(rdev->regmap, info->da_vsel_reg, &regval);
> +	if (ret != 0) {
> +		dev_info(&rdev->dev,
> +			 "Failed to get mt6358 Buck %s vsel reg: %d\n",
> +			 info->desc.name, ret);

dev_err() for errors here and throughout the driver.

> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = (regval >> info->da_vsel_shift) & info->da_vsel_mask;
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

This looks like a standard get_voltage_sel_regmap()?

> +err_mode:
> +	if (ret != 0)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return 0;

Or just return ret unconditionally?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature