Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd/axp2xx: extend axp20x to support axp288 pmic

[Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 15:37:04 +0200
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:45:17AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > > > -static int axp20x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > > > -			 const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> > > > +static int axp2xx_match_device(struct axp2xx_dev *axp2xx,
> > > > struct device *dev) {
> > > > -	struct axp20x_dev *axp20x;
> > > > +	const struct acpi_device_id *acpi_id;
> > > >  	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
> > > > -	int ret;
> > > >  
> > > > -	axp20x = devm_kzalloc(&i2c->dev, sizeof(*axp20x),
> > > > GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > -	if (!axp20x)
> > > > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +	of_id = of_match_device(axp2xx_of_match, dev);
> > > > +	if (of_id) {
> > > > +		axp2xx->variant = (long) of_id->data;
> > > > +		goto found_match;
> > > > +	}
> > > >  
> > > > -	of_id = of_match_device(axp20x_of_match, &i2c->dev);
> > > > -	if (!of_id) {
> > > > -		dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Unable to setup AXP20X
> > > > data\n");
> > > > +	acpi_id =
> > > > acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
> > > > +	if (!acpi_id || !acpi_id->driver_data) {
> > > > +		dev_err(dev, "Unable to setup AXP2XX ACPI
> > > > data\n"); return -ENODEV;
> > > >  	}
> > > > -	axp20x->variant = (long) of_id->data;
> > > > +	axp2xx->variant = (long) acpi_id->driver_data;
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't that be in the if statement above? I guess acpi_id will
> > > be null on a DT-based system.
> > > 
> > I am not sure what you mean. if acpi_id == NULL, then it will return
> > -ENODEV since of_match_device() already found no match. If
> > acpi_id != NULL, then id must contain variant info.
> 
> Hmm, never mind. I read it backward and thought you were still in this
> code path. I guess I need more coffee.
> 
> That goto isn't very intuitive though.
> 
> Maybe something like
> 
> if (of_id) {
>    /* DT case */
> } else if (acpi_id) {
>   /* ACPI case */
> } else {
>   return;
> }
> 
> would be better?
> 
yes, will be in v3.

thanks.
> Maxime
> 

[Jacob Pan]