Re: [RFC PATCH v3 01/15] mfd: bd71828: Support ROHM BD71828 PMIC - core

[Vaittinen, Matti]

Hello Lee,

Thanks for the review!

I was slightly worried I really managed to piss you off last time :)
Glad to see I didn't burn all the bridges (yet) ;)

On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 10:57 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2019, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> 
> > BD71828GW is a single-chip power management IC for battery-powered
> > portable
> > devices. The IC integrates 7 buck converters, 7 LDOs, and a 1500 mA
> > single-cell linear charger. Also included is a Coulomb counter, a
> > real-time
> > clock (RTC), 3 GPO/regulator control pins, HALL input and a 32.768
> > kHz
> > clock gate.
> > 
> > Add MFD core driver providing interrupt controller facilities and
> > i2c
> > access to sub device drivers.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 
> > No changes compared to v2
> > 
> >  drivers/mfd/Kconfig              |  15 ++
> >  drivers/mfd/Makefile             |   2 +-
> >  drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c       | 322 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd71828.h | 425
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/mfd/rohm-generic.h |   1 +
> >  5 files changed, 764 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c
> >  create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd71828.h
> 
> /me wonders why this is still an RFC after 3 revisions?

Because of the regulator part. I've had no comments for it - but I
don't think it should be applied as is in this series. I was kind of
hoping someone more experienced could have pointed me that what I have
tried to achieve here is already handled as <something I am missing
now>.

I don't think we should add sysfs control IF for disabling regulators
(I will drop that completely from first non RFC patch - but I hoped I
might get some friendly pokes/pushes to right direction). Nor am I
happy on how the run-state transitions which impact many regulators are
now handled via single regulator reference - but I can't think of
better approach just now. I hoped I am just missing something which is
obvious to more experienced regulator guys.

If I won't get comments to regulators I'll just drop the sysfs
interfaces (and possibly whole run-level control) and send series
without the RFC then. But I am still cautiously hopeful that Mark has
just a extraordinarily busy moment and will give me some feedback
before I finish v4 :)

> > +unsigned int bit0_offsets[] = {11};		/* RTC IRQ
> > register */
> > +unsigned int bit1_offsets[] = {10};		/* TEMP IRQ
> > register */
> > +unsigned int bit2_offsets[] = {6, 7, 8, 9};	/* BAT MON IRQ
> > registers */
> > +unsigned int bit3_offsets[] = {5};		/* BAT IRQ register */
> > +unsigned int bit4_offsets[] = {4};		/* CHG IRQ register */
> > +unsigned int bit5_offsets[] = {3};		/* VSYS IRQ register */
> > +unsigned int bit6_offsets[] = {1, 2};		/* DCIN IRQ
> > registers */
> 
> Something actually wrong with the tabbing here, or is this a
> Git/patch/mailer anomaly?

I'll check this - I need to staticize these anyways.

> > 
> > +static const struct of_device_id bd71828_of_match[] = {
> > +	{ .compatible = "rohm,bd71828", },
> > +	{ },
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, bd71828_of_match);
> > +
> > +static struct i2c_driver bd71828_drv = {
> > +	.driver = {
> > +		.name = "rohm-bd71828",
> > +		.of_match_table = bd71828_of_match,
> > +	},
> > +	.probe = &bd71828_i2c_probe,
> 
> If 'id' isn't used, perhaps you should be using probe2?

probe2? Sounds like I need to do my homework once again :) Thanks for
the pointer.

Rest of the comments were pretty obvious - thanks. I'll fix these for
v4.

Br,
	Matti