From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:30:26 +0530 Message-ID: <5696122A.6000509@nvidia.com> References: <1452590273-16421-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1452590273-16421-3-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <56959E9A.3060903@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56959E9A.3060903@samsung.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , 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 Cc: lgirdwood@gmail.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, swarren@nvidia.com, treding@nvidia.com, Chaitanya Bandi , Mallikarjun Kasoju List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 13 January 2016 06:17 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12.01.2016 18:17, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> + } >> + dev_dbg(chip->dev, "NVERC = 0x%02x\n", val); >> + for (i = 0; i < 8; ++i) { >> + if (val & BIT(i)) >> + dev_info(chip->dev, "NVERC: %s\n", max77620_nverc[i]); > You are still printing two dev_info (OTP, ES) and here NVERC (probably > one?). This will be printed on each boot, over and over, till the user > will learn it and will remember it forever :). > > From my point of view: one dev_info for one probed device. > > I don't know if others agree with that, though. What's your opinion Lee? OK, I make single line print for OTP and ES version. I remove the NVREC reading and printing as this is read on clear and better to move on uboot for this prints. > > > + > + ret = regmap_add_irq_chip(chip->rmap[MAX77620_PWR_SLAVE], > + chip->chip_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_SHARED, chip->irq_base, > Why do you need IRQF_SHARED? In one of my design, I have three PMICs, one MAX77620, two MAX77621. MAX77621 alert an MAX77620 interrupt line is tied and going to single interrupt of SoC. To register same interrupt from all driver, I made it SHARED. This is per discussion on the other patch regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning >> + &max77620_top_irq_chip, &chip->top_irq_data); > More tabs needed for indentation of arguments. > > Actually the alignment of arguments here is mixed. Sometimes arguments > are aligned with opening parenthesis, mostly not. Can you make it > consistent - always aligned? In my 3rd patch, I tried to align it little more where is possible. But I feel that all these indenting is more over individual choice. Example, I added one more indent in below example to look better. ret = max77620_reg_update(chip->dev, MAX77620_PWR_SLAVE, - MAX77620_REG_ONOFFCNFG2, MAX77620_ONOFFCNFG2_WK_EN0, - MAX77620_ONOFFCNFG2_WK_EN0); + MAX77620_REG_ONOFFCNFG2, MAX77620_ONOFFCNFG2_WK_EN0, + MAX77620_ONOFFCNFG2_WK_EN0);