lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-02 04:01    [W:0.056 / U:0.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site