From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] regulator: mt6380: Add support for MT6380 Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:43:18 +0800 Message-ID: <1498236198.20651.32.camel@mtkswgap22> References: <4276ab23ae0bbb6a54b1add98c4dc668f1a69c50.1496425268.git.sean.wang@mediatek.com> <20170606182224.sifkfod7hehadjvm@sirena.org.uk> <1498233365.20651.25.camel@mtkswgap22> <20170623161420.tbhn6sjuz7jjhaiu@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170623161420.tbhn6sjuz7jjhaiu@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com, jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com, henryc.chen@mediatek.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, chen.zhong@mediatek.com, chenglin.xu@mediatek.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 17:14 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:56:05PM +0800, Sean Wang wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 19:22 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > + return (regval & info->desc.enable_mask) ? > > > > + REGULATOR_STATUS_ON : REGULATOR_STATUS_OFF; > > > > This isn't really a get_status() operation - it's just showing the > > > status of the enable we set. The get_status() operation is for hardware > > > that has a mechanism for reading back the current physical status of the > > > regulator, usually including things like if it's in regulation or not. > > > > Also please write normal conditional statements, it helps people read > > > the code. > > > for the hardware, the way for reflect the current physical physical > > has to depend on the bit reading as the bit we enable. It indeed tends > > to confuse other users and developers, we maybe can add some comments > > for this to avoid. > > It's OK to just not have a get_status() operation - a lot of regulators > just can't do this and that's fine, the subsystem will cope. > understood. it seems to be better with subsystem coping. we'll remove get_status callback. > > > > +static const struct of_device_id mt6380_of_match[] = { > > > > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6380-regulator", }, > > > > + { /* sentinel */ }, > > > > +}; > > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6380_of_match); > > > > Given that this driver is entirely specific to the parent PMIC there > > > should be no need for a separate compatible string, it's redundant. > > > the parent of pmic is MediaTek pwrap which is possibly being used with > > various pmics such as MT6323, MT6797, MT6380 and so on. So extra > > matching we thought is required to identify which pmic is actually being > > connected. > > > For those opinions, maybe we didn't get your exact point. If something > > is wrong, please kindly guide us to the right place. > > It sounds like pwrap should be a bus rather than using a platform device > here? But I guess that's how things are for now so OK. yes, it is a bus , a proprietary bus, which is something like encapsulation of spi and there's some protocol running on this between master/slave.