Re: [PATCH v4 07/14] mfd: Add driver for Maxim 77802 Power Management IC

[Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>]

Hello Krzysztof,

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

On 06/26/2014 11:31 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just a few nit-picks below but overall everything looks fine:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> 
> 

>> +
>> +static int max77802_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
>> +			      const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>> +{
>> +	struct max77802_dev *max77802 = NULL;
>> +	struct max77802_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&i2c->dev);
>> +	unsigned int data;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (i2c->dev.of_node)
>> +		pdata = max77802_i2c_parse_dt_pdata(&i2c->dev);
>> +
>> +	if (!pdata) {
>> +		dev_err(&i2c->dev, "No platform data found.\n");
>> +		return -EIO;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	max77802 = devm_kzalloc(&i2c->dev, sizeof(struct max77802_dev),
>> +				GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (max77802 == NULL)
> 
> It is inconsistent. Before you used "(!pd)" and "(!pdata)" so maybe
> stick to one format?
>

Right, I'll change to "(!max77802)" as well to be consistent.

>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>> +static int max77802_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +	struct i2c_client *i2c = container_of(dev, struct i2c_client, dev);
>> +	struct max77802_dev *max77802 = i2c_get_clientdata(i2c);
>> +
>> +	if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
>> +		enable_irq_wake(max77802->irq);
>> +
>> +	disable_irq(max77802->irq);
> 
> Can you add short comment why this is needed? I know why but just for
> future generations which will wonder: "why do we need to disable the IRQ
> while suspending?" :). Especially that this is rather a workaround for
> issue in other driver (I2C bus).
>

Good idea, I'll add a comment here on next version so code archaeologists can
figure out what what's going on here.

>> +
>> +#define MAX77802_IRQSRC_PMIC            (0)
> 
> Shouldn't it be BIT(0) or BIT(1)? It looks odd.
> 
>> +#define MAX77802_IRQSRC_RTC	        BIT(0)
> 
> Anyway, are these defines used anywhere? Seems not. 
> 

Yes, these defines were used in the max77802-irq.c so is a left over from the
regmap IRQ chip refactoring. I'll remove these and also the ones from max77686
driver.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 

Best regards
Javier