From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bali.collaboradmins.com (bali.collaboradmins.com [148.251.105.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6663B2F8BC1; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760441742; cv=none; b=Q2IYwyIyzNU/OV4QgYm+hTlqYPGlt9zIo8CzuEEAFZyUcjXYjAQiye1TJxr9th/ml1/NlR3BDZ6Ee5kaY37Dsece+Kidt+sCm3+O3Gg632SOgTflLYxnry5SoD0OVq4xgBwoLB8HCELO39c7YYbknA9ZXdBZ5wEApsuuRAFMOlY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760441742; c=relaxed/simple; bh=h4RfT8BW5uglHP1wgDRzO4OhIAmDCeHY9g1PjPS2PTQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=NvwmVLqoOCEhU7hlzyIZWQ0k5Cpr2WqL3miC21t09ivlzBLHN0s5fStcyE06p4WqVh465ze84zDnjSqtl2PaGdCmER04ByJfv/yAS7H0QwkyDqba9JHNTikrIxO0yBZD42aoV6UtY2HXFwa9nbsZirmTsfQvSHISobkuT1OVGew= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=VVabfhq7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.251.105.195 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="VVabfhq7" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1760441738; bh=h4RfT8BW5uglHP1wgDRzO4OhIAmDCeHY9g1PjPS2PTQ=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=VVabfhq7ySgeQWE5YFVpMC15pBUMza3xxclEaC8rofCUOdhDa1fPFMXSahF59tAt/ PlscaPeGH6puZRXSh6XtUdnz+6CF9Foificw1MOmFKh4t3a4oTta5+rOFKdNhW3H+Q XUaAdk+wzy5wenoOHpkJhmM5eZ70dpnkv4bCgV3LN459Q+UWo/+TGav8F5A4WOsx/S 8dkoYVDPd0mQ+K3sv2RhVKBxsTdmrTyQsqw/GltdW4EFW9qQY1OT+ehE2YAkxfW/M2 4E7JHPGCHYOr1A6gBUY6KCGgy4uWUVGuo0rGLqJlv8f7eswHLugQuJw1fo7qIn4pL+ IF5aEfRAvMyFA== Received: from [192.168.1.100] (2-237-20-237.ip236.fastwebnet.it [2.237.20.237]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kholk11) by bali.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FB2517E055D; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:35:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:35:37 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] regulator: Add support for MediaTek MT6363 SPMI PMIC Regulators To: Nicolas Frattaroli , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org Cc: lee@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel@collabora.com, wenst@chromium.org, igor.belwon@mentallysanemainliners.org References: <20251003091158.26748-1-angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> <20251003091158.26748-5-angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> <5635636.31r3eYUQgx@workhorse> From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <5635636.31r3eYUQgx@workhorse> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Il 09/10/25 16:41, Nicolas Frattaroli ha scritto: > On Friday, 3 October 2025 11:11:53 Central European Summer Time AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: >> Add a driver for the regulators found on the MT6363 PMIC, fully >> controlled by SPMI interface. >> This PMIC regulates voltage with an input range of 2.6-5.0V, and >> features 10 buck converters and 26 LDOs. >> >> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno >> --- >> drivers/regulator/Kconfig | 10 + >> drivers/regulator/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/regulator/mt6363-regulator.c | 935 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/regulator/mt6363-regulator.h | 330 ++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 1276 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/mt6363-regulator.c >> create mode 100644 include/linux/regulator/mt6363-regulator.h >> >> [...] >> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/mt6363-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/mt6363-regulator.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..812775072eb5 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/drivers/regulator/mt6363-regulator.c >> [...] >> + >> +static int mt6363_regulator_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, >> + unsigned int mode) >> +{ >> + struct mt6363_regulator_info *info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); >> + struct regmap *regmap = rdev->regmap; >> + int cur_mode, ret; >> + >> + if (!info->modeset_reg && mode == REGULATOR_MODE_FAST) >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> + >> + switch (mode) { >> + case REGULATOR_MODE_FAST: >> + ret = mt6363_buck_unlock(regmap, true); >> + if (ret) >> + break; >> + >> + ret = regmap_set_bits(regmap, info->modeset_reg, info->modeset_mask); >> + >> + mt6363_buck_unlock(regmap, false); >> + break; >> + case REGULATOR_MODE_NORMAL: >> + cur_mode = mt6363_regulator_get_mode(rdev); >> + if (cur_mode < 0) { >> + ret = cur_mode; >> + break; >> + } >> + >> + if (cur_mode == REGULATOR_MODE_FAST) { >> + ret = mt6363_buck_unlock(regmap, true); >> + if (ret) >> + break; >> + >> + ret = regmap_clear_bits(regmap, info->modeset_reg, info->modeset_mask); >> + >> + mt6363_buck_unlock(regmap, false); >> + break; >> + } else if (cur_mode == REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE) { >> + ret = regmap_clear_bits(regmap, info->lp_mode_reg, info->lp_mode_mask); >> + if (ret == 0) >> + usleep_range(100, 200); >> + } else { >> + ret = 0; > > Just initialise ret to 0 at the start of the function scope when > you declare it. You've already missed an uninitialised use once, > and playing these branch games is just asking for more trouble > in the future. There's no micro-optimisation you're doing here, > clang produces the same assembly for both zero initialised and > the else branch version you're doing here. > It's not about micro-optimization. Double initialization is a bad coding practice. Cheers, Angelo >> + } >> + break; >> + case REGULATOR_MODE_IDLE: >> + ret = regmap_set_bits(regmap, info->lp_mode_reg, info->lp_mode_mask); >> + break; >> + default: >> + ret = -EINVAL; >> + } >> + >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Failed to set mode %u: %d\n", mode, ret); >> + return ret; >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> [...] > > Kind regards, > Nicolas Frattaroli > >