From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shawn.guo@freescale.com (Shawn Guo) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:13:58 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v6 0/6] mc13783: add pwr button support In-Reply-To: <201107250849.26071.philippe.retornaz@epfl.ch> References: <1311344232-29902-1-git-send-email-philippe.retornaz@epfl.ch> <20110724034418.GA28189@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <201107250849.26071.philippe.retornaz@epfl.ch> Message-ID: <20110725071357.GD21641@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 08:49:25AM +0200, Philippe R?tornaz wrote: > Le dimanche 24 juillet 2011 05:44:19, Shawn Guo a ?crit : > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:17:06PM +0200, Philippe R?tornaz wrote: > > > Hello > > > > > > This add button handling for the MC13783 PMIC. > > > > > > Patch 1 & 2 modify the mc13xxx MFD driver to use the platform data to > > > resgister the led subdevice and unconditionally register the regulator > > > subdevice (as suggested by Mark and Uwe). > > > > > > Patch 3 remove the use of the *_USE_REGULATOR and *_USE_LED macros in > > > the platform files. > > > > > > Patch 4 must be applied after patch 1,2,3 to remove the obsolete define. > > > > > > Patch 5 modify the mc13xxx MFD driver to add a button subdevice and > > > also adds the mc13783-pwrbutton driver using a misc input device. > > > > > > The last patch adds the power on button support to the mx31moboard > > > boards. > > > > > > v2: first patch modified according to comments by Dmitry Torokhov > > > v3: Implement review by Uwe > > > v4: Implement comments by Uwe and Mark > > > v5: Reorder patchset > > > v6: Minor corrections > > > > It seems you did not address the comment about possible NULL pdata I > > put on v4? > > Yes I did in patch 5: > > --- a/drivers/mfd/mc13xxx-core.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mc13xxx-core.c > @@ -716,6 +716,11 @@ static int mc13xxx_probe(struct spi_device *spi) > enum mc13xxx_id id; > int ret; > > + if (!pdata) { > + dev_err(&spi->dev, "invalid platform data\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > Ah, missed that. I thought it should be fixed with a separate patch in the first place. But I'm fine with it, as long as it gets fixed :) -- Regards, Shawn