Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 May 2018 08:55:06 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: da9063: Disallow RTC on DA9063L |
| |
On Thu, 24 May 2018, Steve Twiss wrote:
> Thanks Marek, > > On 23 May 2018 12:42 Marek Vasut wrote, > > > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>; Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>; Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: da9063: Disallow RTC on DA9063L > > > > The DA9063L does not contain RTC block, unlike the full DA9063. > > Do not allow binding RTC driver on this variant of the chip. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com> > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > > Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com> > > Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org > > --- > > drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c | 18 +++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c index 7360b76b4f72..263c83006413 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c > > @@ -101,14 +101,14 @@ static const struct mfd_cell da9063_devs[] = { > > .of_compatible = "dlg,da9063-onkey", > > }, > > { > > + .name = DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION, > > + }, > > + { /* Only present on DA9063 , not on DA9063L */ > > .name = DA9063_DRVNAME_RTC, > > .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_rtc_resources), > > .resources = da9063_rtc_resources, > > .of_compatible = "dlg,da9063-rtc", > > }, > > - { > > - .name = DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION, > > - }, > > }; > > > > static int da9063_clear_fault_log(struct da9063 *da9063) @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned int irq) { > > struct da9063_pdata *pdata = da9063->dev->platform_data; > > int model, variant_id, variant_code; > > - int ret; > > + int da9063_devs_len, ret; > > > > ret = da9063_clear_fault_log(da9063); > > if (ret < 0) > > @@ -225,9 +225,13 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned int irq) > > > > da9063->irq_base = regmap_irq_chip_get_base(da9063->regmap_irq); > > > > - ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs, > > - ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs), NULL, da9063->irq_base, > > - NULL); > > + da9063_devs_len = ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs); > > + /* RTC, the last device in the list, is only present on DA9063 */ > > + if (da9063->type == PMIC_TYPE_DA9063L) > > + da9063_devs_len -= 1; > > + > > + ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs, da9063_devs_len, > > + NULL, da9063->irq_base, NULL); > > if (ret) > > dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n"); > > > > MFD cells definitely has less impact than regmap_range and regmap_irq. > I agree, there's no point in having a completely new > static const struct mfd_cell da9063l_devs[] = { ... } for DA9063L
This solution is fragile.
I agree that a new MFD cell is not required in its entirety. It would however, be better to split out the RTC entry into a new one and only register it when (da9063->type == PMIC_TYPE_DA9063). This is a better solution than messing around with passed struct sizes.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |