Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: bd96801: Add ERRB IRQ

[Matti Vaittinen]

On 09/10/2024 19:11, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>
> > The ROHM BD96801 "scalable PMIC" provides two physical IRQs. The ERRB
> > handling can in many cases be omitted because it is used to inform fatal
> > IRQs, which usually kill the power from the SOC.
> >
> > There may however be use-cases where the SOC has a 'back-up' emergency
> > power source which allows some very short time of operation to try to
> > gracefully shut down sensitive hardware. Furthermore, it is possible the
> > processor controlling the PMIC is not powered by the PMIC. In such cases
> > handling the ERRB IRQs may be beneficial.
> >
> > Add support for ERRB IRQs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Revision history:
> > New series (only ERRB addition)
> > v2:
> > 	- Suffle local variables in probe()
> > 	- Unify and improve the error prints when adding regmap IRQ chip for
> > 	  INTB or ERRB fails.
> > v1:
> > 	- use devm allocation for regulator_res
> > 	- use goto skip_errb instead of an if (errb)
> > 	- constify immutable structs
> >
> > Old series (All BD96801 functionality + irqdomain and regmap changes)
> > v2 => v3:
> > 	- No changes
> > v1 => v2:
> > 	- New patch
> > ---
> >   drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c | 275 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >   1 file changed, 241 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
> Are the 2 patches tied together or can they be taken separately?

I tried compiling the commits individually, and there should be no 
compilation dependencies between them. The MFD commit introduces the 
IRQs the regulator commit is using - but the regulator code should not 
abort if getting the ERRB IRQs fails - assuming I read the code right. I 
don't have the BD96801 at my hands to test right now (I'm not in the 
office).

Also, the ERRB IRQ registration is only attempted if ERRB IRQs are given 
in device-tree. I don't think we have users who run the bleeding-edge 
upstream and I'd be _very_ surprized if there are users who run newest 
upstream (or subsystem trees) AND have added ERRBs to device-tree.

So, I'd say it should be safe to take em separately, but sure it'd be 
nice to have them landing in same release.

Yours,
	-- Matti