Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] mfd: mt6370: Add Mediatek MT6370 support

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:19 PM ChiaEn Wu <peterwu.pub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> 於 2022年6月24日 週五 凌晨2:01寫道：
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:59 PM ChiaEn Wu <peterwu.pub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SOC_PMIC_BXTWC)  += intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SOC_PMIC_CHTWC)     += intel_soc_pmic_chtwc.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SOC_PMIC_CHTDC_TI)  += intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MT6360)       += mt6360-core.o
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MT6370)       += mt6370.o
> > >  mt6397-objs                    := mt6397-core.o mt6397-irq.o mt6358-irq.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MT6397)       += mt6397.o
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_SOC_PMIC_MRFLD)     += intel_soc_pmic_mrfld.o
> >
> > This whole bunch of drivers is in the wrong place in Makefile.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220616182524.7956-2-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> hmm... So shall we need to cherry-pick your this patch first,
> then modify the Makefile before the next submission??

I don't know what Lee's preferences are, but at least I have these
options in mind:
1) wait until Lee applies my series;
2) take that single patch to your tree as a precursor.

In the second case you will need to send the series with that patch as well.

...

> > > +#define MT6370_REG_MAXADDR     0x1FF
> >
> > Wondering if (BIT(10) - 1) gives a better hint on how hardware limits
> > this (so it will be clear it's 10-bit address).
>
> well... This "0x1FF" is just a virtual mapping value to map the max
> address of the PMU bank(0x1XX).
> So, I feel its means is different from using (BIT(10) - 1) here.

Perhaps a comment then?

...

> > > +       if (ret < 0)
> > > +               return ret;
> > > +       else if (ret != val_size)
> >
> > Redundant 'else'.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean, so I made the following changes first.
> ------------------------------------
>        if (ret < 0)
>               return ret;
>        if (ret != val_size)
>               return -EIO;
> ------------------------------------
> I don't know if it meets your expectations??

Yes.

> > > +               return -EIO;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko