Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 May 2014 09:39:12 +0200 | From | Hans de Goede <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mfd: AXP22x: add support for APX221 PMIC |
| |
Hi,
On 05/19/2014 07:45 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > Hello Lee, > > On 19/05/2014 19:28, 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.
Regards,
Hans
| |