Re: [PATCH v4 9/9] mfd: mt6360: Merge different sub-devices I2C read/write

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2020, Gene Chen wrote:

> Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> 於 2020年8月28日 週五 下午6:40寫道：
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, Gene Chen wrote:
> >
> > > From: Gene Chen <gene_chen@richtek.com>
> > >
> > > Remove unuse register definition.
> >
> > This should be in a separate patch.
> >
> > > Merge different sub-devices I2C read/write functions into one Regmap,
> > > because PMIC and LDO part need CRC bits for access protection.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <gene_chen@richtek.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/Kconfig        |   1 +
> > >  drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c  | 260 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > >  include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h | 240 -----------------------------------------
> > >  3 files changed, 226 insertions(+), 275 deletions(-)
> > >  delete mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > index a37d7d1..0684ddc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> > > @@ -913,6 +913,7 @@ config MFD_MT6360
> > >       select MFD_CORE
> > >       select REGMAP_I2C
> > >       select REGMAP_IRQ
> > > +     select CRC8
> > >       depends on I2C
> > >       help
> > >         Say Y here to enable MT6360 PMU/PMIC/LDO functional support.
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > index 677c974..e995220 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > > @@ -14,7 +14,53 @@
> > >  #include <linux/regmap.h>
> > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > >
> > > -#include <linux/mfd/mt6360.h>
> > > +enum {
> > > +     MT6360_SLAVE_TCPC = 0,
> > > +     MT6360_SLAVE_PMIC,
> > > +     MT6360_SLAVE_LDO,
> > > +     MT6360_SLAVE_PMU,
> > > +     MT6360_SLAVE_MAX,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +struct mt6360_ddata {
> > > +     struct i2c_client *i2c[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX];
> > > +     struct device *dev;
> > > +     struct regmap *regmap;
> > > +     struct regmap_irq_chip_data *irq_data;
> > > +     unsigned int chip_rev;
> > > +     u8 crc8_tbl[CRC8_TABLE_SIZE];
> > > +};
> >
> > This is not a new structure, right?  Where was this before?  Surely it
> > should be removed from wherever it was in the same patch that places
> > it here?
> >
> 
> No, it is merge from header file to source code for unuse in other sub-module.

So where did it come from and why don't I see the removal in this
patch?

[...]

> > > -static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = {
> > > -     MT6360_PMU_SLAVEID,
> > > +static const u16 mt6360_slave_addrs[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = {
> >
> > Why are you changing the data type?
> >
> 
> Easy to read.
> I think it's the same?

It's an unrelated change and should not be in this patch.

Please separate patches into functional changes.

> > > +     MT6360_TCPC_SLAVEID,
> > >       MT6360_PMIC_SLAVEID,
> > >       MT6360_LDO_SLAVEID,
> > > -     MT6360_TCPC_SLAVEID,
> > > +     MT6360_PMU_SLAVEID,
> > > +};

[...]

> > >  static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > @@ -329,9 +521,23 @@ static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > >               return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > >       ddata->dev = &client->dev;
> > > -     i2c_set_clientdata(client, ddata);
> > >
> > > -     ddata->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(client, &mt6360_pmu_regmap_config);
> > > +     for (i = 0; i < MT6360_SLAVE_MAX - 1; i++) {
> > > +             ddata->i2c[i] = devm_i2c_new_dummy_device(&client->dev,
> > > +                                                       client->adapter,
> > > +                                                       mt6360_slave_addrs[i]);
> > > +             if (IS_ERR(ddata->i2c[i])) {
> > > +                     dev_err(&client->dev,
> > > +                             "Failed to get new dummy I2C device for address 0x%x",
> > > +                             mt6360_slave_addrs[i]);
> > > +                     return PTR_ERR(ddata->i2c[i]);
> >
> > Do you have to free the new devices you just allocated?
> >
> 
> Usually no need to free devm_i2c_new_dummy_device,
> Should I use kfree(ddata->i2c[i]);?

You tell me.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

_______________________________________________
Linux-mediatek mailing list
Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek