Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mfd: rn5t618: add more subdevices

[Andreas Kemnade]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:31:06 +0000
Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> 
> > The RC5T619 has a RTC which is missing in the
> > RN5T618. Add it as subdevice to prepare for their implementation
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > - alignment cleanup
> >  drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > index d78eb29b94a4..18d56a732b20 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ static const struct mfd_cell rn5t618_cells[] = {
> >  	{ .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
> >  };
> >  
> > +static const struct mfd_cell rc5t619_cells[] = {
> > +	{ .name = "rn5t618-regulator" },
> > +	{ .name = "rc5t619-rtc" },
> > +	{ .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
> > +};
> > +
> >  static bool rn5t618_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> >  {
> >  	switch (reg) {
> > @@ -173,8 +179,14 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> >  		return ret;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rn5t618_cells,
> > -				   ARRAY_SIZE(rn5t618_cells), NULL, 0, NULL);
> > +	if (priv->variant == RC5T619)
> > +		ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rc5t619_cells,  
> 
> Ref: The "-1", please use this as an opportunity to use the defines.
> 
> > +					   ARRAY_SIZE(rc5t619_cells),
> > +					   NULL, 0, NULL);
> > +	else  
> 
> Are you sure it's not possible for 'variant' to be an unsupported
> device?
> 
Well, does it change the behavior for devices other than the rc5t619?
I do not think so. If the mfd driver is bound to unsupported devices,
rn5t618_of_match is wrong.

Or do you want separate cell arrays for each of the three variant now to
ease future extensions?

Regards,
Andreas

Attachment: pgpa9QPA9etTV.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature