Re: [PATCH INTERNAL v1 3/3] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add driver for TI TPS6594 regulators

[jerome Neanne]

On 24/02/2023 14:42, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 02:31:29PM +0100, Esteban Blanc wrote:
> > From: Jerome Neanne <jneanne@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch adds support for TPS6594 regulators (bucks and LDOs).
> > The output voltages are configurable and are meant to supply power
> > to the main processor and other components.
> > Bucks can be used in single or multiphase mode, depending on PMIC
> > part number.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jerome Neanne <jneanne@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> You've not provided a Signed-off-by for this so I can't do anything with
> it, please see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for details
> on what this is and why it's important.
I did this patch but Esteban sent the whole patch-list. The sign-off has 
not been updated accordingly. Sorry for disturbance. We'll fix that.
> > @@ -0,0 +1,559 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Regulator driver for tps6594 PMIC
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2022 BayLibre Incorporated - https://www.baylibre.com/
>
> Please make the entire comment block a C++ one so things look more
> intentional.
>
> > +static unsigned int tps6594_get_mode(struct regulator_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > +	return REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL;
> > +}
>
> If configuring modes isn't supported just omit all mode operations.
>
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	regulator_notifier_call_chain(irq_data->rdev,
> > +				      irq_data->type->event, NULL);
> > +
> > +	dev_err(irq_data->dev, "Error IRQ trap %s for %s\n",
> > +		irq_data->type->event_name, irq_data->type->regulator_name);
>
> I suspect it might avoid future confusion to log the error before
> notifying so that any consequences of the error more clearly happen in
> response to the error.
I'll rework all that section for v2 following your recommendations
> > +static int tps6594_get_rdev_by_name(const char *regulator_name,
> > +				    struct regulator_dev *rdevbucktbl[BUCK_NB],
> > +				    struct regulator_dev *rdevldotbl[LDO_NB],
> > +				    struct regulator_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i <= BUCK_NB; i++) {
> > +		if (strcmp(regulator_name, buck_regs[i].name) == 0) {
> > +			dev = rdevbucktbl[i];
> > +			return 0;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ldo_regs); i++) {
> > +		if (strcmp(regulator_name, ldo_regs[i].name) == 0) {
> > +			dev = rdevldotbl[i];
> > +			return 0;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
>
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tps6594_regulator_irq_types); ++i) {
> > +		irq_type = &tps6594_regulator_irq_types[i];
> > +
> > +		irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, irq_type->irq_name);
> > +		if (irq < 0)
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +		irq_data[i].dev = tps->dev;
> > +		irq_data[i].type = irq_type;
> > +
> > +		tps6594_get_rdev_by_name(irq_type->regulator_name, rdevbucktbl,
> > +					 rdevldotbl, rdev);
>
> This would be simpler and you wouldn't need this lookup function if the
> regulator descriptions included their IRQ names, then you could just
> request the interrupts while registering the regulators.
>
> > +		error = devm_request_threaded_irq(tps->dev, irq, NULL,
> > +						  tps6594_regulator_irq_handler,
> > +						  IRQF_ONESHOT,
> > +						  irq_type->irq_name,
> > +						  &irq_data[i]);
> > +		if (error) {
> > +			dev_err(tps->dev, "failed to request %s IRQ %d: %d\n",
> > +				irq_type->irq_name, irq, error);
> > +			return error;
> > +		}
>
> This leaks all previously requested interrupts.
Thanks for your time and precious feedback.