From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hqemgate14.nvidia.com (hqemgate14.nvidia.com. [216.228.121.143]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a76si29551pfj.2.2016.01.13.01.10.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:10:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5696122A.6000509@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:30:26 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , , , , , , , , , , , CC: , , , , , , , Chaitanya Bandi , Mallikarjun Kasoju Subject: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH V2 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024 References: <1452590273-16421-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1452590273-16421-3-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <56959E9A.3060903@samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <56959E9A.3060903@samsung.com> 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: , On Wednesday 13 January 2016 06:17 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12.01.2016 18:17, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> + } >> + dev_dbg(chip->dev, "NVERC = 0x%02x\n", val); >> + for (i = 0; i < 8; ++i) { >> + if (val & BIT(i)) >> + dev_info(chip->dev, "NVERC: %s\n", max77620_nverc[i]); > You are still printing two dev_info (OTP, ES) and here NVERC (probably > one?). This will be printed on each boot, over and over, till the user > will learn it and will remember it forever :). > > From my point of view: one dev_info for one probed device. > > I don't know if others agree with that, though. What's your opinion Lee? OK, I make single line print for OTP and ES version. I remove the NVREC reading and printing as this is read on clear and better to move on uboot for this prints. > > > + > + ret = regmap_add_irq_chip(chip->rmap[MAX77620_PWR_SLAVE], > + chip->chip_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_SHARED, chip->irq_base, > Why do you need IRQF_SHARED? In one of my design, I have three PMICs, one MAX77620, two MAX77621. MAX77621 alert an MAX77620 interrupt line is tied and going to single interrupt of SoC. To register same interrupt from all driver, I made it SHARED. This is per discussion on the other patch regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning >> + &max77620_top_irq_chip, &chip->top_irq_data); > More tabs needed for indentation of arguments. > > Actually the alignment of arguments here is mixed. Sometimes arguments > are aligned with opening parenthesis, mostly not. Can you make it > consistent - always aligned? In my 3rd patch, I tried to align it little more where is possible. But I feel that all these indenting is more over individual choice. Example, I added one more indent in below example to look better. ret = max77620_reg_update(chip->dev, MAX77620_PWR_SLAVE, - MAX77620_REG_ONOFFCNFG2, MAX77620_ONOFFCNFG2_WK_EN0, - MAX77620_ONOFFCNFG2_WK_EN0); + MAX77620_REG_ONOFFCNFG2, MAX77620_ONOFFCNFG2_WK_EN0, + MAX77620_ONOFFCNFG2_WK_EN0); -- -- 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.