Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add driver for TI TPS6594 regulators

[andy.shevchenko@gmail.com]

Mon, May 22, 2023 at 06:31:15PM +0200, Esteban Blanc kirjoitti:
> From: Jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com>
> 
> This patch adds support for TPS6594 regulators (bucks and LDOs).

BUCKs (otherwise $$$?)

> The output voltages are configurable and are meant to supply power
> to the main processor and other components.
> Bucks can be used in single or multiphase mode, depending on PMIC

BUCKs (otherwise $$$?)

> part number.

...

> +	help
> +	  This driver supports TPS6594 voltage regulator chips.
> +	  TPS6594 series of PMICs have 5 BUCKs and 4 LDOs
> +	  voltage regulators.
> +	  BUCKs 1,2,3,4 can be used in single phase or multiphase mode.
> +	  Part number defines which single or multiphase mode is i used.

i?!

> +	  It supports software based voltage control
> +	  for different voltage domains.

...

> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>

> +#include <linux/of_device.h>

Are you sure this one is correct and / or of.h is not missing? of_match_ptr()
IIRC is defined in of.h.

> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/of_regulator.h>

...

> +/* Operations permitted on BUCK1/2/3/4/5 */
> +static const struct regulator_ops tps6594_bucks_ops = {
> +	.is_enabled		= regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
> +	.enable			= regulator_enable_regmap,
> +	.disable		= regulator_disable_regmap,
> +	.get_voltage_sel	= regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap,
> +	.set_voltage_sel	= regulator_set_voltage_sel_regmap,
> +	.list_voltage		= regulator_list_voltage_linear_range,
> +	.map_voltage		= regulator_map_voltage_linear_range,
> +	.set_voltage_time_sel	= regulator_set_voltage_time_sel,

> +

Redundant blank line.

> +};

...

> +	int error;
> +
> +	for (j = 0; j < REGS_INT_NB; j++) {
> +		irq_type = &tps6594_regs_irq_types[j];
> +		irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, irq_type->irq_name);
> +		if (irq < 0)
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +
> +		irq_data[*irq_idx + j].dev = tps->dev;
> +		irq_data[*irq_idx + j].type = irq_type;
> +		irq_data[*irq_idx + j].rdev = rdev;
> +
> +		error = devm_request_threaded_irq(tps->dev, irq, NULL,
> +						  tps6594_regulator_irq_handler,
> +						  IRQF_ONESHOT,
> +						  irq_type->irq_name,
> +						  &irq_data[*irq_idx]);

> +		(*irq_idx)++;

This is interesing. So, even in error case we touch given parameter. Usually
the pattern is not to touch the output if we know there is an error.

> +		if (error) {
> +			dev_err(tps->dev, "tps6594 failed to request %s IRQ %d: %d\n",
> +				irq_type->irq_name, irq, error);
> +			return error;
> +		}
> +	}

...

> +	u8 buck_configured[BUCK_NB] = { 0 };
> +	u8 buck_multi[MULTI_PHASE_NB] = { 0 };

0:s are not needed but I dunno if it's a style in the regulator subsystem.

> +	static const char * const multiphases[] = {"buck12", "buck123", "buck1234", "buck34"};
> +	static const char *npname;
> +	int error, i, irq, multi, delta;
> +	int irq_idx = 0;
> +	int buck_idx = 0;
> +	int ext_reg_irq_nb = 2;

> +

Redundant blank line.

> +	enum {
> +		MULTI_BUCK12,
> +		MULTI_BUCK123,
> +		MULTI_BUCK1234,
> +		MULTI_BUCK12_34,

> +		MULTI_FIRST = MULTI_BUCK12,
> +		MULTI_LAST = MULTI_BUCK12_34,
> +		MULTI_NUM = MULTI_LAST - MULTI_FIRST + 1

		MULT_NUM

will suffice instead all this.

> +	};

But why enum at all? See below.

...

> +	/*
> +	 * Switch case defines different possible multi phase config
> +	 * This is based on dts buck node name.
> +	 * Buck node name must be chosen accordingly.
> +	 * Default case is no Multiphase buck.
> +	 * In case of Multiphase configuration, value should be defined for
> +	 * buck_configured to avoid creating bucks for every buck in multiphase
> +	 */
> +	for (multi = MULTI_FIRST; multi < MULTI_NUM; multi++) {
> +		np = of_find_node_by_name(tps->dev->of_node, multiphases[multi]);
> +		npname = of_node_full_name(np);
> +		np_pmic_parent = of_get_parent(of_get_parent(np));
> +		if (of_node_cmp(of_node_full_name(np_pmic_parent), tps->dev->of_node->full_name))

Why not of_node_full_name() in the second case?


> +			continue;
> +		delta = strcmp(npname, multiphases[multi]);
> +		if (!delta) {
> +			switch (multi) {
> +			case MULTI_BUCK12:

This all looks like match_string() reinvention.

> +				buck_multi[0] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[0] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[1] = 1;
> +				break;
> +			/* multiphase buck34 is supported only with buck12 */
> +			case MULTI_BUCK12_34:
> +				buck_multi[0] = 1;
> +				buck_multi[1] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[0] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[1] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[2] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[3] = 1;
> +				break;
> +			case MULTI_BUCK123:
> +				buck_multi[2] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[0] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[1] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[2] = 1;
> +				break;
> +			case MULTI_BUCK1234:
> +				buck_multi[3] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[0] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[1] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[2] = 1;
> +				buck_configured[3] = 1;
> +				break;
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}

...

> +	irq_data = devm_kmalloc_array(tps->dev,
> +				REGS_INT_NB * sizeof(struct tps6594_regulator_irq_data),
> +				ARRAY_SIZE(tps6594_bucks_irq_types) +
> +				ARRAY_SIZE(tps6594_ldos_irq_types),
> +				GFP_KERNEL);

Have you checked overflow.h? There are macros to help with the above calculus.

> +	if (!irq_data)
> +		return -ENOMEM;

...

> +		rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &multi_regs[i], &config);
> +		if (IS_ERR(rdev))
> +			return dev_err_probe(tps->dev, PTR_ERR(rdev),

Why not &pdev->dev here?

> +					     "failed to register %s regulator\n",
> +					     pdev->name);

...

> +		rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &buck_regs[i], &config);
> +		if (IS_ERR(rdev))
> +			return dev_err_probe(tps->dev, PTR_ERR(rdev),
> +					     "failed to register %s regulator\n",
> +					     pdev->name);

Hmm... Again, why the error is printed against different device than regulator
registration?

...

> +	/* LP8764 dosen't have LDO */
> +	if (tps->chip_id != LP8764) {
> +		for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ldo_regs); i++) {
> +			rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &ldo_regs[i], &config);
> +			if (IS_ERR(rdev))
> +				return dev_err_probe(tps->dev, PTR_ERR(rdev),
> +						     "failed to register %s regulator\n",
> +						     pdev->name);
> +
> +			error = tps6594_request_reg_irqs(pdev, rdev, irq_data,
> +							 tps6594_ldos_irq_types[i],
> +							 &irq_idx);
> +			if (error)
> +				return error;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	if (tps->chip_id == LP8764)

'else'?

Or actually

	if (tps->chip_id == LP8764) {
		...
	} else {
		the above part
	}

?


> +		ext_reg_irq_nb = ARRAY_SIZE(tps6594_ext_regulator_irq_types);

...

> +static struct platform_driver tps6594_regulator_driver = {
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = "tps6594-regulator",
> +	},
> +	.probe = tps6594_regulator_probe,
> +};

> +

This blank line is not needed.

> +module_platform_driver(tps6594_regulator_driver);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko