Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] mfd: max77541: Add ADI MAX77541/MAX77540 PMIC Support

[Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:

> >On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Lee Jones wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Mar 2023, Okan Sahin wrote:
> >>
> >> > MFD driver for MAX77541/MAX77540 to enable its sub devices.
> >> >
> >> > The MAX77541 is a multi-function devices. It includes buck converter
> >> > and ADC.
> >> >
> >> > The MAX77540 is a high-efficiency buck converter with two 3A
> >> > switching phases.
> >> >
> >> > They have same regmap except for ADC part of MAX77541.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Okan Sahin <okan.sahin@analog.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/mfd/Kconfig          |  13 ++
> >> >  drivers/mfd/Makefile         |   1 +
> >> >  drivers/mfd/max77541.c       | 224
> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  include/linux/mfd/max77541.h |  97 +++++++++++++++
> >> >  4 files changed, 335 insertions(+)
> >> >  create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/max77541.c  create mode 100644
> >> > include/linux/mfd/max77541.h
> >>
> >> FYI: I'm not re-reviewing this since you've chosen to ignore some of
> >> my previous review comments.  Issues highlighted by review comments
> >> don't just go away on resubmission.
> >
> >... and the subject is malformed.
> >
> >--
> >Lee Jones [李琼斯]
>
> Hi Lee,
>
> I am sorry if I missed your review comments, this was not my intention. I want to thank you for your contribution. Your feedbacks are very valuable, and I am trying to understand and fix each one before sending the patch. Indeed, I sorted your feedback on previous patches. As far as I know, I have fixed all of them, is there a problem with any of them that I fixed, or is there any missing review? From you, there were some comments like "why did you use this?", I suppose I need to respond them before sending following patches. I thought I should not bother the maintainers unnecessarily. I am sorry for them.

Please ask your email client to line-wrap.

Here is the part of the review you ignored:

[...]

> +static const struct chip_info chip[] = {

Why do you need this require sub-structure?

> +	[MAX77540] = {
> +		.id = MAX77540,
> +		.n_devs = ARRAY_SIZE(max77540_devs),
> +		.devs = max77540_devs,
> +	},
> +	[MAX77541] = {
> +		.id = MAX77541,
> +		.n_devs = ARRAY_SIZE(max77541_devs),
> +		.devs = max77541_devs,
> +	},
> +};

[...]

> +static const struct of_device_id max77541_of_id[] = {
> +	{
> +		.compatible = "adi,max77540",
> +		.data = &chip[MAX77540],
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.compatible = "adi,max77541",
> +		.data = &chip[MAX77541],
> +	},
> +	{ /* sentinel */  }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77541_of_id);
> +
> +static const struct i2c_device_id max77541_i2c_id[] = {
> +	{ "max77540", (kernel_ulong_t)&chip[MAX77540] },
> +	{ "max77541", (kernel_ulong_t)&chip[MAX77541] },

Just 'MAX77540' is fine.

> +	{ /* sentinel */ }

Remove the comment, we know how terminators work.

Same comments for max77541_of_id.

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]