Re: [PATCH 2/3] regulator: qcom_spmi: Add support for PM8005

Jeffrey Hugo
2019-05-21T23:16:06Z

On 5/21/2019 12:50 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:53:15AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>
>> - spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_COMMON_REG_VOLTAGE_RANGE, &range_sel, 1);
>> + /* second common devices don't have VOLTAGE_RANGE register */
>> + if (vreg->logical_type == SPMI_REGULATOR_LOGICAL_TYPE_FTSMPS2) {
>> + spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_COMMON2_REG_VOLTAGE_LSB, &lsb, 1);
>> + spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_COMMON2_REG_VOLTAGE_MSB, &msb, 1);
>> +
>> + uV = (((int)msb << 8) | (int)lsb) * 1000;
>
> This overlaps with some changes that Jorge (CCed) was sending for the
> PMS405. As I was saying to him rather than shoving special cases for
> different regulator types into the ops (especially ones that don't have
> any of the range stuff) it'd be better to just define separate ops for
> the regulators that look quite different to the existing ones.

Sorry, I hadn't paid attention to that discussion. Reviewing it now.
>
>> +static int spmi_regulator_common_list_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
>> + unsigned selector);
>> +
>> +static int spmi_regulator_common2_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
>> + unsigned selector)
>
> Eeew, can we not have better names?

I'm open to suggestions. Apparently there are two register common
register schemes - the old one and the new one. PMIC designs after some
random point in time are all the new register scheme per the
documentation I see.

As far as I an aware, the FT426 design is the first design to be added
to this driver to make use of the new scheme, but I expect more to be
supported in future, thus I'm reluctant to make these ft426 specific in
the name.

>
>> +static unsigned int spmi_regulator_common2_get_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>> +{
>> + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
>> + u8 reg;
>> +
>> + spmi_vreg_read(vreg, SPMI_COMMON2_REG_MODE, &reg, 1);
>> +
>> + if (reg == SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_HPM_MASK)
>> + return REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL;
>> +
>> + if (reg == SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_AUTO_MASK)
>> + return REGULATOR_MODE_FAST;
>> +
>> + return REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE;
>> +}
>
> This looks like you want to write a switch statement.

It follows the existing style in the driver, but sure I can make this a
switch.

>
>> +spmi_regulator_common2_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned int mode)
>> +{
>> + struct spmi_regulator *vreg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
>> + u8 mask = SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_MASK;
>> + u8 val = SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_LPM_MASK;
>> +
>> + if (mode == REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL)
>> + val = SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_HPM_MASK;
>> + else if (mode == REGULATOR_MODE_FAST)
>> + val = SPMI_COMMON2_MODE_AUTO_MASK;
>
> This needs to be a switch statement, then it can have a default case to
> catch errors too.
>

--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.