Re: [PATCH v10 2/4] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: refactor to support new SPMI vibrator

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>]

On 4/12/24 14:36, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
> 
> Currently, vibrator control register addresses are hard coded,
> including the base address and offsets, it's not flexible to
> support new SPMI vibrator module which is usually included in
> different PMICs with different base address. Refactor it by using
> the base address defined in devicetree.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
> ---

[...]

>   static const struct pm8xxx_regs pm8058_regs = {
> -	.drv_addr = 0x4A,
> +	.drv_offset = 0,
>   	.drv_mask = 0xf8,

Since you're nearby anyway:

GENMASK(7, 3)

>   	.drv_shift = 3,
>   	.drv_en_manual_mask = 0xfc,
>   };
>   
>   static struct pm8xxx_regs pm8916_regs = {
> -	.enable_addr = 0xc046,
> +	.enable_offset = 0x46,
>   	.enable_mask = BIT(7),
> -	.drv_addr = 0xc041,
> -	.drv_mask = 0x1F,
> +	.drv_offset = 0x41,
> +	.drv_mask = 0x1f,

GENMASK(4, 0)

[...]

>   
> +	error = fwnode_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.fwnode, "reg", &reg_base);
> +	if (error < 0) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to read reg address, rc=%d\n", error);
> +		return error;

return dev_err_probe() instead

Konrad