From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754133AbcAHJ0x (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 04:26:53 -0500 Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:19882 "EHLO hqemgate16.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752899AbcAHJ0t (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 04:26:49 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Fri, 08 Jan 2016 01:10:03 -0800 Message-ID: <568F7E7B.1010501@nvidia.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:46:43 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 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: X-Originating-IP: [10.19.65.30] X-ClientProxiedBy: DRUKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.25.59.20) To bgmail102.nvidia.com (10.25.59.11) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.