Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: frequency: adf4377: add adf4378 support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 17/07/2024 11:30, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:
> Add separate handling for adf4378 within the driver.
> 
> The main difference between adf4377 and adf4378 is that adf4378 has only
> one output which is handled by only one gpio.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
> index 9284c13f1abb..e02298a8b47f 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
> @@ -387,6 +387,11 @@
>  #define ADF4377_FREQ_PFD_250MHZ			(250 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
>  #define ADF4377_FREQ_PFD_320MHZ			(320 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
>  
> +enum adf4377_dev_type {
> +	ADF4377,
> +	ADF4378,
> +};
> +
>  enum {
>  	ADF4377_FREQ,
>  };
> @@ -402,6 +407,7 @@ enum muxout_select_mode {
>  
>  struct adf4377_state {
>  	struct spi_device	*spi;
> +	enum adf4377_dev_type	type;
>  	struct regmap		*regmap;
>  	struct clk		*clkin;
>  	/* Protect against concurrent accesses to the device and data content */
> @@ -687,7 +693,7 @@ static void adf4377_gpio_init(struct adf4377_state *st)
>  	if (st->gpio_enclk1)
>  		gpiod_set_value(st->gpio_enclk1, 1);
>  
> -	if (st->gpio_enclk2)
> +	if (st->gpio_enclk2 && st->type == ADF4377)

Why? Isn't everything correct for NULL?

>  		gpiod_set_value(st->gpio_enclk2, 1);
>  }
>  
> @@ -889,11 +895,13 @@ static int adf4377_properties_parse(struct adf4377_state *st)
>  		return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk1),
>  				     "failed to get the CE GPIO\n");
>  
> -	st->gpio_enclk2 = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&st->spi->dev, "clk2-enable",
> -						  GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> -	if (IS_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2))
> -		return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2),
> -				     "failed to get the CE GPIO\n");
> +	if (st->type == ADF4377) {

So the device does not have this pin? Then you should express it in the
bindings.

> +		st->gpio_enclk2 = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&st->spi->dev, "clk2-enable",
> +							  GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> +		if (IS_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2))
> +			return dev_err_probe(&spi->dev, PTR_ERR(st->gpio_enclk2),
> +					"failed to get the CE GPIO\n");
> +	}
>  
>  	ret = device_property_match_property_string(&spi->dev, "adi,muxout-select",
>  						    adf4377_muxout_modes,
> @@ -945,6 +953,7 @@ static int adf4377_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  
>  	st->regmap = regmap;
>  	st->spi = spi;
> +	st->type = spi_get_device_id(spi)->driver_data;


spi_get_device_match_data()

>  	mutex_init(&st->lock);
>  
>  	ret = adf4377_properties_parse(st);
> @@ -964,13 +973,15 @@ static int adf4377_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  }
>  
>  static const struct spi_device_id adf4377_id[] = {
> -	{ "adf4377", 0 },
> +	{ "adf4377", ADF4377 },
> +	{ "adf4378", ADF4378 },
>  	{}
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(spi, adf4377_id);
>  
>  static const struct of_device_id adf4377_of_match[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "adi,adf4377" },
> +	{ .compatible = "adi,adf4378" },

Your device ID tables have incoherent match data. Considering that one
type is 0, this is error-prone and discouraged.

Best regards,
Krzysztof