From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752936AbcA2LLU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:11:20 -0500
Received: from hqemgate14.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.143]:4154 "EHLO
	hqemgate14.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750831AbcA2LLR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:11:17 -0500
X-PGP-Universal: processed;
	by hqnvupgp08.nvidia.com on Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:11:51 -0800
Message-ID: <56AB462A.8090307@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:29:54 +0530
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
CC: <robh+dt@kernel.org>, <pawel.moll@arm.com>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>, <galak@codeaurora.org>,
        <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, <gnurou@gmail.com>, <broonie@kernel.org>,
        <a.zummo@towertech.it>, <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
        <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        <rtc-linux@googlegroups.com>, <swarren@nvidia.com>,
        <treding@nvidia.com>, <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>,
        Chaitanya Bandi <bandik@nvidia.com>,
        Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/8] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024
References: <1453988274-28052-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1453988274-28052-3-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20160129090632.GS3368@x1>
In-Reply-To: <20160129090632.GS3368@x1>
X-Originating-IP: [10.19.65.30]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DRUKMAIL101.nvidia.com (10.25.59.19) 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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Thanks Lee for review.
I will take care of most of stuff on next version of patch.

However, I have some query form your comment.
On Friday 29 January 2016 02:36 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>
>> +	}
>> +
>> +#define MAX20024_SUB_MODULE_NO_RES(_name, _id)			\
>> +	[_id] = {						\
>> +		.name = "max20024-"#_name,			\
>> +		.id = _id,					\
>> +	}
> I don't want people hand-rolling this stuff.  If it's useful to you,
> it's useful to others, so great a generic implementation that lives in
> the kernel headers directory.

yaah, generic implementation possible. I can put the new defines in the 
mfd/core.h.

This will be similar to
+/* Define mfd cells with name and resource */
+#define DEFINE_MFD_CELL_NAME_RESOURCE(_name, _res)             \
+       {                                                       \
+               .name = (_name),                                \
+               .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE((res)),             \
+               .resources = (_res),                            \
+       }
+
+/* Define mfd cells with name */
+#define DEFINE_MFD_CELL_NAME(_name)                            \
+       {                                                       \
+               .name = (_name),                                \
+       }
+

This will be separate patch and should be applied before this series.
Does it look fine?


>
>> +static const struct i2c_device_id max77620_id[] = {
>> +	{"max77620", MAX77620},
>> +	{"max20024", MAX20024},
>> +	{},
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max77620_id);
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id max77620_of_match[] = {
>> +	{
>> +		.compatible = "maxim,max77620",
>> +		.data = &max77620_cells,
>> +	}, {
>> +		.compatible = "maxim,max20024",
>> +		.data = &max20024_cells,
>> +	}, {
>> +	},
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77620_of_match);
> This is not acceptable.  EITHER use DT OR MFD methods of registering
> devices, do not mix the two.

You mean I need to either provide the i2c_device_id table or the 
of_device_id table, not both?
Do I need to protect it by CONFIG_OF?

This only support the DT method of registration. So do I need to remove 
i2c_device_id?