Linux on ARM based TI OMAP SoCs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shree Ramamoorthy <s-ramamoorthy@ti.com>
To: Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>, <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>,
	<andreas@kemnade.info>, <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	<tony@atomide.com>, <lee@kernel.org>,
	<linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <m-leonard@ti.com>, <praneeth@ti.com>, <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mfd: tps65215: Remove regmap_read check
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 16:18:47 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <630b8727-cffa-4118-93e4-2dd8ce97ebde@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8b086855-d381-4219-93f3-7da8b44e2551@kernel.org>

Hi,

On 1/4/2025 12:16 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>
> On 04/01/2025 00:57, Shree Ramamoorthy wrote:
>> The chipid macro/variable and regmap_read function call is not needed
>> because the TPS65219_REG_TI_DEV_ID register value is not a consistent value
>> across TPS65219 PMIC config versions. Reading from the DEV_ID register
>> without a consistent value to compare it to isn't useful. There isn't a
>> way to verify the match data ID is the same ID read from the DEV_ID device
>> register. 0xF0 isn't a DEV_ID value consistent across TPS65219 NVM
>> configurations.
>>
>> For TPS65215, there is a consistent value in bits 5-0 of the DEV_ID
>> register. However, there are other error checks in place within probe()
>> that apply to both PMICs rather than keeping this isolated check for one
>> PMIC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shree Ramamoorthy <s-ramamoorthy@ti.com>
> In that case this could be squashed with 1?

Since this change does not have to do with TPS65215 support directly
and is a different type of change, I wanted to keep this patch separate.
I can instead have this patch be first, then the MFD add TPS65215 support
will follow this to avoid any confusion about regmap_read being modified then removed.

>> ---
>>  drivers/mfd/tps65219.c       | 6 ------
>>  include/linux/mfd/tps65219.h | 2 --
>>  2 files changed, 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65219.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65219.c
>> index 816b271990a2..d3267bf7cd77 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65219.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65219.c
>> @@ -382,12 +382,6 @@ static int tps65219_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>>  	if (ret)
>>  		return ret;
>>  
>> -	ret = regmap_read(tps->regmap, TPS65219_REG_TI_DEV_ID, &tps->chip_id);
>> -	if (ret) {
>> -		dev_err(tps->dev, "Failed to read device ID: %d\n", ret);
>> -		return ret;
>> -	}
>> -
>>  	ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(tps->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
>>  				   pmic->cells, pmic->n_cells,
>>  				   NULL, 0, regmap_irq_get_domain(tps->irq_data));
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/tps65219.h b/include/linux/mfd/tps65219.h
>> index 9892b6e4c85c..535115bfa4a4 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mfd/tps65219.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/tps65219.h
>> @@ -15,8 +15,6 @@
>>  #include <linux/regmap.h>
>>  #include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
>>  
>> -/* TPS chip id list */
>> -#define TPS65219					0xF0
>>  /* Chip id list*/
>>  enum pmic_id {
>>  	TPS65215,
> Looking at TRM, TPS65215 device_id is 0x15 and TPS6521901 device_id is 0x00.
>
> shouldn't we use that here as well?

The device_id value set varies across TPS65219 hardware versions.
Having the device_id as the chip_id differentiator will fail for TPS65219,
even though the system engineers have now kept the TPS65215 device_id value
consistent across all hardware versions.


  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-06 22:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-03 22:57 [PATCH v2 0/2] Add TI TPS65215 PMIC MFD Support Shree Ramamoorthy
2025-01-03 22:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: tps65215: Add support for TI TPS65215 PMIC Shree Ramamoorthy
2025-01-04 11:30   ` Christophe JAILLET
2025-01-06 22:13     ` Shree Ramamoorthy
2025-01-04 18:10   ` Roger Quadros
2025-01-06 22:20     ` Shree Ramamoorthy
2025-01-03 22:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mfd: tps65215: Remove regmap_read check Shree Ramamoorthy
2025-01-04 18:16   ` Roger Quadros
2025-01-06 22:18     ` Shree Ramamoorthy [this message]
2025-01-07 12:47       ` Roger Quadros
2025-01-07 18:45         ` Shree Ramamoorthy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=630b8727-cffa-4118-93e4-2dd8ce97ebde@ti.com \
    --to=s-ramamoorthy@ti.com \
    --cc=aaro.koskinen@iki.fi \
    --cc=andreas@kemnade.info \
    --cc=christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr \
    --cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
    --cc=lee@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m-leonard@ti.com \
    --cc=praneeth@ti.com \
    --cc=rogerq@kernel.org \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox