Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add MediaTek MT6380 as one slave of pwrap | From | Matthias Brugger <> | Date | Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:02:05 +0200 |
| |
On 08/15/2017 11:09 AM, sean.wang@mediatek.com wrote: > From: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > > Add MediaTek MT6380 regulator becoming one of PMIC wrapper slave > and also add extra new regmap_config of 32-bit mode for MT6380 > since old regmap_config of 16-bit mode can't be fit into the need. > > Signed-off-by: Chenglin Xu <chenglin.xu@mediatek.com> > Signed-off-by: Chen Zhong <chen.zhong@mediatek.com> > Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com> > --- > drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c > index 1f8b69a..047e3d9 100644 > --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c > +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c > @@ -501,6 +501,7 @@ struct pmic_wrapper; > struct pwrap_slv_type { > const u32 *dew_regs; > enum pmic_type type; > + const struct regmap_config *regmap; > /* pwrap operations are highly associated with the PMIC types, > * so the pointers added increases flexibility allowing determination > * which type is used by the detection through device tree. > @@ -1109,7 +1110,7 @@ static irqreturn_t pwrap_interrupt(int irqno, void *dev_id) > return IRQ_HANDLED; > } > > -static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config = { > +static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config16 = { > .reg_bits = 16, > .val_bits = 16, > .reg_stride = 2, > @@ -1118,9 +1119,19 @@ static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config = { > .max_register = 0xffff, > }; > > +static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config32 = { > + .reg_bits = 32, > + .val_bits = 32, > + .reg_stride = 4, > + .reg_read = pwrap_regmap_read, > + .reg_write = pwrap_regmap_write, > + .max_register = 0xffff, > +}; > + > static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6323 = { > .dew_regs = mt6323_regs, > .type = PMIC_MT6323, > + .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config16, > .pwrap_read = pwrap_read16, > .pwrap_write = pwrap_write16, > }; > @@ -1128,6 +1139,7 @@ static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6323 = { > static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6380 = { > .dew_regs = NULL, > .type = PMIC_MT6380, > + .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config32, > .pwrap_read = pwrap_read32, > .pwrap_write = pwrap_write32, > }; > @@ -1135,6 +1147,7 @@ static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6380 = { > static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6397 = { > .dew_regs = mt6397_regs, > .type = PMIC_MT6397, > + .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config16, > .pwrap_read = pwrap_read16, > .pwrap_write = pwrap_write16, > }; > @@ -1144,9 +1157,15 @@ static const struct of_device_id of_slave_match_tbl[] = { > .compatible = "mediatek,mt6323", > .data = &pmic_mt6323, > }, { > + /* The MT6380 slave device is directly pointed to the regulator > + * device which is different from the cases MT6323 and MT6397 > + * where they're one kind of MFDs. > + */ > + .compatible = "mediatek,mt6380-regulator", > + .data = &pmic_mt6380,
I understand that mt6380 only provides a regulator and no other function other PMICs provide, right?
Then maybe write a comment like: The MT6380 PMIC only implements a regulator, so we bind it directly instead of using a MFD. If so, we should state that in the pwrap bindings document, I think.
Regards, Matthias
| |