Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:37:34 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V1] mfd: da9053: ensure the FAULT_LOG is cleared during MFD driver probe |
| |
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Steve Twiss wrote:
> > On 08 August 2016 12:06, Steve Twiss wrote: > > > On 05 August 2016 10:05, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Wed, 06 Jul 2016, Steve Twiss wrote: > > > > > From: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com> > > > > > > > > > > Clearance of any the persistent information within the DA9053 FAULT_LOG > > > > > register must be completed during start-up so the fault-log does not > > > > > continue with previous values. A clearance function has been added here in > > > > > the kernel driver because wiping the fault-log cannot be counted on outside > > > > > the Linux kernel. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like much of the same code. Can you have a pop at generifying > > > > this to avoid any unnecessary duplication? > > > > > > Hi Lee, > > > > > > Although the function looks like those found in both the DA9062 and DA9063 drivers, I was just > > > intending to highlight the "requirement similarities" to clear the fault register on start-up. This > > > requirement for the Dialog PMIC chips extends across those devices, but the function is not > > > really general enough to be merged into the kernel core or reused across other Dialog devices. > > > > > > I don't think there is unnecessary duplication in this particular case for the DA9052/53 driver. > > > > > > This da9052_clear_fault_log() function will apply to both the Dialog DA9052 and DA9053 PMICs > > > and so I am making good use of code re-use in this place. But, this does not extend to the > > > DA9062 or DA9063. > > > > > > I don't think this FAULT_LOG clearance function in this case is really open to generalisation past > > > the DA9052/53 driver. > > > > Hi Lee, > > > [...] > > The fault log function is individual for each chip and would be customisable to meet the needs > > of the customer's target platform. > > > > The function is meant to be individual. This allows for multiple chips in the same platform -- each > > fault log function could be cleared slightly differently in that case. > [...] > > Hi Lee, > Do you have any further thoughts on this topic?
I have it marked as "TODO" in my Inbox.
The plan is to have a `brain diff` when I can find some free time.
-- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |