Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:45:08 +0530 | From | Laxman Dewangan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc: max77686: Add support for MAX20024/MAX77620 RTC IP |
| |
On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:28 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 29.02.2016 21:58, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > + .alarm_pending_status_reg = MAX77620_RTC_ALARM_PENDING_STATUS_REG, > Just skip the alarm_pending_status_reg (so it will be 0x0) and check for > non-zero value later? > > It might be a little bit non consistent approach to how we map RTC > registers (REG_RTC_NONE)... so I don't have strong feelings about this.
I choose -1 because 0 is also valid. So I can have macro for INVALID register which is -1 and use here, other places direct register as STATUS2.
> >> + if (info->drv_data->rtc_irq_from_platform) { >> + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(info->dev); >> + >> + info->rtc_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > It may return -ERRNO. What happens then?
MFD is initializing the irq and so it will not fail on this particular case. Even if error, the regmap_add_irq should fail.
Let me handle error at this point only to avoid any assumption and further processing with error, by returning error.
> >> + } else { >> + info->rtc_irq = parent_i2c->irq; >> + } >> >> info->regmap = dev_get_regmap(parent, NULL); >> if (!info->regmap) { >> @@ -802,6 +840,8 @@ static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max77686_rtc_pm_ops, >> static const struct platform_device_id rtc_id[] = { >> { "max77686-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77686_drv_data, }, >> { "max77802-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77802_drv_data, }, >> + { "max77620-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77620_drv_data, }, >> + { "max20024-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77620_drv_data, }, > There shouldn't be "max20024-rtc". This is exactly the same as > "max77620-rtc" so re-use existing id. No point of duplicating device > names for 100% compatible devices. > > I am thinking that having compatible for each device which it supports is better.
In MFD, I have made all sub module of max20024 as max20024-<module>. I have not mixed the sub module name for max20024 with max77620 module.
| |