From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Graeme Gregory Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: Palmas: Introduce features to select the appropriate modules present in the palmas variant Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:35:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20130614103518.GH5456@mint> References: <1371201718-15101-1-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> <20130614095554.GF5456@mint> <51BAEA19.7070509@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from www.xora.org.uk ([80.68.91.202]:59930 "EHLO xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750774Ab3FNKfT (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:35:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "J, KEERTHY" Cc: Laxman Dewangan , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" , "sameo@linux.intel.com" On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:22:04AM +0000, J, KEERTHY wrote: > Graeme/Laxman, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- > > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Laxman Dewangan > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:32 PM > > To: Graeme Gregory > > Cc: J, KEERTHY; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; > > broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com; sameo@linux.intel.com > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: Palmas: Introduce features to select the > > appropriate modules present in the palmas variant > > > > On Friday 14 June 2013 03:25 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:51:58PM +0530, J Keerthy wrote: > > >> - children[PALMAS_PMIC_ID].platform_data = pdata->pmic_pdata; > > >> - children[PALMAS_PMIC_ID].pdata_size = sizeof(*pdata->pmic_pdata); > > >> + if (PALMAS_PMIC_HAS(palmas, REGULATORS)) { > > >> + children[PALMAS_PMIC_ID].platform_data = pdata->pmic_pdata; > > >> + children[PALMAS_PMIC_ID].pdata_size = > > >> + sizeof(*pdata->pmic_pdata); > > >> + } > > >> > > > I think a lot of complexity here could actually be removed by > > removing > > > the old board file style probing for palmas. I do not beleive either > > > major user of palmas requires that anymore? I always had in my mind > > > that this bit was temporary. > > > > Completely agree, we should not have this. Also this is not valid much > > in DT context and so we can remove it. > > So shall I completely knock off the pdata assignments? > > BTW having features flag would still be handy for PMICs which might > Not have all the features as TWL6035/Palmas. So I still want to retain > That. Is it Okay? > Everything from the line children = kmemdup(palmas_children, sizeof(palmas_children), GFP_KERNEL) until error handling can go. As well as the palmas_children/palmas_ids array at the top. The features variable is I think superceded by DT, a feature not in chip should not be in the DT. But if you have other technical reasons to keep it I have no real strong opinion. Graeme