Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 3/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: add new SPMI vibrator support

[Fenglin Wu]

On 2023/10/1 0:17, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:54:45AM +0800, Fenglin Wu wrote:
> > On 9/24/2023 3:07 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +       switch (vib->data->hw_type) {
> > > > +       case SSBI_VIB:
> > > >                   mask = SSBI_VIB_DRV_LEVEL_MASK;
> > > >                   shift = SSBI_VIB_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       case SPMI_VIB:
> > > > +               mask = SPMI_VIB_DRV_LEVEL_MASK;
> > > > +               shift = SPMI_VIB_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       case SPMI_VIB_GEN2:
> > > > +               mask = SPMI_VIB_GEN2_DRV_MASK;
> > > > +               shift = SPMI_VIB_GEN2_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       default:
> > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > Could you please move the switch to the previous patch? Then it would
> > > be more obvious that you are just adding the SPMI_VIB_GEN2 here.
> > >
> > > Other than that LGTM.
> >
> > Sure, I can move the switch to the previous refactoring patch.
>
> Actually, the idea of having a const "reg" or "chip", etc. structure is
> to avoid this kind of runtime checks based on hardware type and instead
> use common computation. I believe you need to move mask and shift into
> the chip-specific structure and avoid defining hw_type.
>
> Thanks.

Hi Dmitry,

The v7 changes have been pending for a while, I am not sure if you are 
still insist on this. As I explained, I actually did it this way in v2 
and it got updated to this by following other comments.

Can you respond and tell me if you prefer changes similar to v2? I can 
update and push v8 by following your suggestion.

v7: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20231108-pm8xxx-vibrator-v7-0-632c731d25a8@xxxxxxxxxxx/

v2: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230718062639.2339589-3-quic_fenglinw@xxxxxxxxxxx/

Thanks
>