Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 3/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: add new SPMI vibrator support

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:54:45AM +0800, Fenglin Wu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/24/2023 3:07 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > +
> > > +       switch (vib->data->hw_type) {
> > > +       case SSBI_VIB:
> > >                  mask = SSBI_VIB_DRV_LEVEL_MASK;
> > >                  shift = SSBI_VIB_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > +               break;
> > > +       case SPMI_VIB:
> > > +               mask = SPMI_VIB_DRV_LEVEL_MASK;
> > > +               shift = SPMI_VIB_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > +               break;
> > > +       case SPMI_VIB_GEN2:
> > > +               mask = SPMI_VIB_GEN2_DRV_MASK;
> > > +               shift = SPMI_VIB_GEN2_DRV_SHIFT;
> > > +               break;
> > > +       default:
> > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > Could you please move the switch to the previous patch? Then it would
> > be more obvious that you are just adding the SPMI_VIB_GEN2 here.
> > 
> > Other than that LGTM.
> 
> Sure, I can move the switch to the previous refactoring patch.

Actually, the idea of having a const "reg" or "chip", etc. structure is
to avoid this kind of runtime checks based on hardware type and instead
use common computation. I believe you need to move mask and shift into
the chip-specific structure and avoid defining hw_type.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry