Messages in this thread | | | From | Steve Twiss <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH V3 5/9] mfd: da9061: MFD core support | Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:25:00 +0000 |
| |
On 02 November 2016 14:29, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016, Steve Twiss wrote: > > From: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com> > > > > @@ -475,7 +855,25 @@ static int da9062_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > - chip->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(i2c, &da9062_regmap_config); > > + switch (chip->chip_type) { > > + case(COMPAT_TYPE_DA9061): > > + cell = da9061_devs; > > + cell_num = ARRAY_SIZE(da9061_devs); > > + irq_chip = &da9061_irq_chip; > > + config = &da9061_regmap_config; > > + break; > > + case(COMPAT_TYPE_DA9062): > > + cell = da9062_devs; > > + cell_num = ARRAY_SIZE(da9062_devs); > > + irq_chip = &da9062_irq_chip; > > + config = &da9062_regmap_config; > > + break; > > + default: > > + dev_err(chip->dev, "Unrecognised chip type\n"); > > + return -ENODEV; > > + } > > I very much dislike when MFD and OF functionality is mixed. > > In your case you can use da9062_get_device_type() to dynamically > interrogate the device and register using the correct MFD cells that > way.
Hi Lee,
It's the device tree that decides what the chip type is. It's not chip interrogation in this case. The ordering dictates this I think: to access the hardware ID register, a regmap definition is needed first. But because the correct I2C register map requires a knowledge of what chip is being used, it becomes a circular dependency.
To solve this dependency, I define the chip type (DA9061 or DA9062) in the device tree and assign the correct regmap first before accessing any registers.
> > + chip->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(i2c, config); > > if (IS_ERR(chip->regmap)) { > > ret = PTR_ERR(chip->regmap); > > dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to allocate register map: %d\n", > > @@ -493,7 +891,7 @@ static int da9062_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, > > > > ret = regmap_add_irq_chip(chip->regmap, i2c->irq, > > IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT |IRQF_SHARED, > > - -1, &da9062_irq_chip, > > + -1, irq_chip, > > What is -1?
.. it's a request for an irq_base. http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c#L477
Is there a reason I shouldn't be doing that? There doesn't seem to be a #define anywhere, and using -1 seems to be the standard in the kernel at the moment.
Regards, Steve
| |