Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 May 2014 09:11:34 +0200 | From | Boris BREZILLON <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mfd: AXP22x: add support for APX221 PMIC |
| |
Hello Lee On 20/05/2014 09:48, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>> This patch introduces preliminary support for the X-Powers AXP221 PMIC. >>>>> The AXP221 is typically used on boards using Allwinner's A31 SoC. >>>>> >>>>> At the moment, this driver only exposes regulator devices, but other >>>>> subdevices. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 12 +++ >>>>> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + >>>>> drivers/mfd/axp22x.c | 237 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> include/linux/mfd/axp22x.h | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 4 files changed, 399 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/axp22x.c >>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/axp22x.h >>>> Not a chance. >>>> >>>> Farrrr, too much common code with axp20x.c - please merge into one file. >>>> >>> This was one of the questions I asked in my cover letter (could you take >>> a look at it and tell me what's your prefered solution ?) ;-). >>> >>> I first tried to reuse the axp20x drivers, but ended up copying almost >>> all definitions, hence I decided to first do a different driver and ask >>> for advices. >> I've just taken a good look at this (I'm planning on doing an axp152 driver >> myself), and it seems that using a single mfd driver for the 20x and 221 should >> be quite feasible: >> >> - axp20x.h would get some new register defines for registers which are >> different (or unique) to the 221 prefixed with aXP221 >> - An axp20x_writeable_ranges would need >> to be extended with a third range going from AXP221_BAT_CAP1 (0xe0) >> to AXP221_BAT_LOW_THRESH (0xe6) >> - axp20x_writeable_table would get .n_yes_ranges set to 2, and a new >> apx22x_writeable_table would be introduced with n_yes_ranges set to 3. >> - add a new axp221_supplies array >> - add a new axp221_cells array >> - and finally use the proper structs in axp20x_i2c_probe depending on the type >> >> Note that this means sharing ie the interrupt table, which is ok since they >> are the same, except that the 221 has a couple of interrupts missing, but >> the ones which are shared are all at the same place. > Exactly. As .probe() is identical, you only require some device > matching and some extra structs where the data actually differs > between devices. >
I think you've applied this patch on your for-next tree by mistake. As stated above, this driver should be merged with the axp20x one.
Best Regards,
Boris
-- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
| |