Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] power: supply: max77759: add charger driver

From: Amit Sunil Dhamne

Date: Thu Feb 19 2026 - 15:39:10 EST


Hi Andre',

On 2/19/26 7:52 AM, André Draszik wrote:
Hi Amit,

I was trying out your series and noticed a few things that I didn't before:

On Wed, 2026-02-18 at 21:59 +0000, Amit Sunil Dhamne via B4 Relay wrote:

[...]

diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max77759_charger.c b/drivers/power/supply/max77759_charger.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..035f16822d85de94c7707ce11c49345c714cd559
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/power/supply/max77759_charger.c
[...]

+ dev_err(chg->dev, "Invalid mode transition from %d to %d",
+ chg->mode, mode);
All your format strings are missing the final \n throughout this patch.

Sorry will fix. I think this is because of my muscle memory from writing `tcpm_log` (which doesn't require an escape character).



[...]

+static int max77759_charger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct regulator_config chgin_otg_reg_cfg;
+ struct power_supply_config psy_cfg;
+ struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+ struct max77759_charger *chg;
+ int ret;
+
+ device_set_of_node_from_dev(dev, dev->parent);
+ chg = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chg), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!chg)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chg);
+ chg->dev = dev;
+ chg->regmap = dev_get_regmap(dev->parent, "charger");
+ if (!chg->regmap)
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENODEV, "Missing regmap");
+
+ ret = devm_mutex_init(dev, &chg->lock);
+ if (ret)
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to initialize lock");
+
+ ret = devm_mutex_init(dev, &chg->retry_lock);
+ if (ret)
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
+      "Failed to initialize retry_lock");
+
+ psy_cfg.fwnode = dev_fwnode(dev);
+ psy_cfg.drv_data = chg;
+ chg->psy = devm_power_supply_register(dev, &max77759_charger_desc,
+       &psy_cfg);
+ if (IS_ERR(chg->psy))
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, -EPROBE_DEFER,
+      "Failed to register psy, ret=%ld",
+      PTR_ERR(chg->psy));
Why are you returning -EPROBE_DEFER here instead of the original error? This
is quite unusual.

Will fix. The original thought was that the power_supply_check_supplies() (run as part of power_supply_register()) wasn't deferring probe if it didn't find its provider device but I was mistaken.


Regards,

Amit


Cheers,
Andre'