Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] regulator: da9063: add voltage monitoring registers

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

Hi Benjamin,

On 4/5/23 08:29, Benjamin Bara wrote:
> From: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>
> 
> Add the definitions for the registers responsible for voltage
> monitoring. Add a voltage monitor enable bitfield per regulator.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@skidata.com>
> ---
>   drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   include/linux/mfd/da9063/registers.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c
> index 82f52a2a031a..1c720fc595b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c

...

>   
> @@ -932,6 +955,12 @@ static int da9063_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   			if (IS_ERR(regl->suspend_sleep))
>   				return PTR_ERR(regl->suspend_sleep);
>   		}
> +		if (regl->info->vmon.reg) {

Just a very minor thing - wouldn't this check be better as:
if (regl->info->vmon.mask) ?

We may have device(s) where 0 is a valid reg. However, mask 0 is 
probably not making sense - unless I misunderstand something?

Well, I guess the reg 0 is not valid for vmon on currently supported 
ICs, and it probably is unlikely that would happen on a future device 
either. Still, treating register 0 as 'not initialized' always feels a 
tad bad for me if it can be avoided. So, perhaps consider this if you 
re-spin for some other reason - but I don't think this is by any means 
crucial.

FWIW:
Reviewed-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>

> +			regl->vmon = devm_regmap_field_alloc(&pdev->dev,
> +				da9063->regmap, regl->info->vmon);
> +			if (IS_ERR(regl->vmon))
> +				return PTR_ERR(regl->vmon);
> +		}
>   



-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~