From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 22:14:20 +0900 Message-ID: <568FB62C.9020109@samsung.com> References: <1452177524-23192-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1452177524-23192-3-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <568F7E7B.1010501@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <568F7E7B.1010501@nvidia.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, ldewangan@nvidia.com Cc: k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org, gnurou@gmail.com, lee.jones@linaro.org, broonie@kernel.org, a.zummo@towertech.it, alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, swarren@nvidia.com, treding@nvidia.com, Chaitanya Bandi , Mallikarjun Kasoju List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org W dniu 08.01.2016 o 18:16, Laxman Dewangan pisze: > Hi Krzysztof, > Thanks for review. > I will fix most of your comment on my next patch. > > Answering to some of comment/query. > > On Friday 08 January 2016 07:05 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> ()2016-01-07 23:38 GMT+09:00 Laxman Dewangan : >> + dev_err(dev, >> + "FPS enable-input %u is not >> supported\n", >> + pval); >> Indentation of arguments does not seem equal here or maybe this is >> just my email client. Have you run this through checkpatch? And >> sparse? And coccicheck (that one definitely not because kbuild is >> complaining)? > I ran checkpatch before I sent. Anyway please be sure that indentation is consistent. > >> + chip->rmap[i] = devm_regmap_init_i2c(chip->clients[i], >> + (const struct regmap_config >> *)&max77620_regmap_config[i]); >> Indentation looks weird here (or again this is my email client...). >> The cast is even weirder?!? Why casting? > There is some parameter difference for MAX77620 and MAX20024. I have > only one structure for it and changing tun time so I have not define > this structure as constant. > Now API needs const type structure and hence casting it. I don't quite get... usually there is no need of casting pointer to a writable memory when function accepts pointer to const. > > However, I have define different structure for MAX77620 and MAX20024 > which are const type and hence no need to explicitly casting here. This > will be in my next patch. You mean v2? Okay, let's wait for that... > > +static inline int max77620_reg_update(struct device *dev, int sid, > + unsigned int reg, unsigned int mask, unsigned int val) > +{ > + struct max77620_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > + > + return regmap_update_bits(chip->rmap[sid], reg, mask, val); > +} > >> I think all these shouldn't be static inlines in header. Although some >> of them are one-liners but rest are not. Let the compiler decide what >> to do with these wrappers. > > If I dont make inline from header then this will complain as unused > static function on related C compilation if it is not used on C. This > header included from all sub module driver and they are not using all > these APIs. > > To avoid compilation warning, I need to use inline here. Because this shouldn't be defined in header at the first place. Instead define it in main MFD driver with EXPORT_SYMBOL() and put in headers just declaration. Best regards, Krzysztof