From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com (hqemgate16.nvidia.com. [216.228.121.65]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h86si192364pfd.0.2016.01.08.01.26.49 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Jan 2016 01:26:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <568F7E7B.1010501@nvidia.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:46:43 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Chaitanya Bandi , Mallikarjun Kasoju Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024 References: <1452177524-23192-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1452177524-23192-3-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Reply-To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Hi Krzysztof, Thanks for review. I will fix most of your comment on my next patch. Answering to some of comment/query. On Friday 08 January 2016 07:05 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > ()2016-01-07 23:38 GMT+09:00 Laxman Dewangan : > + dev_err(dev, > + "FPS enable-input %u is not supported\n", > + pval); > Indentation of arguments does not seem equal here or maybe this is > just my email client. Have you run this through checkpatch? And > sparse? And coccicheck (that one definitely not because kbuild is > complaining)? I ran checkpatch before I sent. > + chip->rmap[i] = devm_regmap_init_i2c(chip->clients[i], > + (const struct regmap_config *)&max77620_regmap_config[i]); > Indentation looks weird here (or again this is my email client...). > The cast is even weirder?!? Why casting? There is some parameter difference for MAX77620 and MAX20024. I have only one structure for it and changing tun time so I have not define this structure as constant. Now API needs const type structure and hence casting it. However, I have define different structure for MAX77620 and MAX20024 which are const type and hence no need to explicitly casting here. This will be in my next patch. +static inline int max77620_reg_update(struct device *dev, int sid, + unsigned int reg, unsigned int mask, unsigned int val) +{ + struct max77620_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); + + return regmap_update_bits(chip->rmap[sid], reg, mask, val); +} > I think all these shouldn't be static inlines in header. Although some > of them are one-liners but rest are not. Let the compiler decide what > to do with these wrappers. If I dont make inline from header then this will complain as unused static function on related C compilation if it is not used on C. This header included from all sub module driver and they are not using all these APIs. To avoid compilation warning, I need to use inline here. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.