Re: [PATCH V2 3/4] regulator: pv88080: Update Regulator driver for MFD support

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 990 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:03:14AM +0900, Eric Jeong wrote:

>  config REGULATOR_PV88080
> -	tristate "Powerventure Semiconductor PV88080 regulator"
> -	depends on I2C
> -	select REGMAP_I2C
> +	bool "Powerventure Semiconductor PV88080 regulator"
> +	depends on MFD_PV88080

Forcing the driver to be built in looks like a regression, why would we
want to do that?

> +	irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "regulator-irq");
> +	if (irq < 0) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get IRQ.\n");
> +		return irq;
>  	}

What's the _byname() adding here given that the name is so generic?  It
feels like if the name ever becomes important then this particular name
is going to be a problem.

> -module_i2c_driver(pv88080_regulator_driver);
> +static int __init pv88080_regulator_init(void)
> +{
> +	return platform_driver_register(&pv88080_regulator_driver);
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(pv88080_regulator_init);

Why are you converting this to subsys_initcall()?  This looks like
another regression.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]