Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Aug 2022 16:38:17 +0300 | From | Matti Vaittinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get_enable() |
| |
On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300 > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Use devm_regulator_bulk_get_enable() instead of open coded bulk-get, >> bulk-enable, add-action-to-disable-at-detach - pattern. >> >> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> >> >> --- >> v2 => v3 >> Split to own patch. >> --- >> drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c | 23 +++-------------------- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c >> index 28bdde2d3088..fcad3efe62ea 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c >> +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ltc2688.c >> @@ -84,7 +84,6 @@ struct ltc2688_chan { >> struct ltc2688_state { >> struct spi_device *spi; >> struct regmap *regmap; >> - struct regulator_bulk_data regulators[2]; >> struct ltc2688_chan channels[LTC2688_DAC_CHANNELS]; >> struct iio_chan_spec *iio_chan; >> /* lock to protect against multiple access to the device and shared data */ >> @@ -902,13 +901,6 @@ static int ltc2688_setup(struct ltc2688_state *st, struct regulator *vref) >> LTC2688_CONFIG_EXT_REF); >> } >> >> -static void ltc2688_disable_regulators(void *data) >> -{ >> - struct ltc2688_state *st = data; >> - >> - regulator_bulk_disable(ARRAY_SIZE(st->regulators), st->regulators); >> -} >> - >> static void ltc2688_disable_regulator(void *regulator) >> { >> regulator_disable(regulator); >> @@ -970,6 +962,7 @@ static int ltc2688_probe(struct spi_device *spi) >> struct regulator *vref_reg; >> struct device *dev = &spi->dev; >> int ret; >> + static const char * const regulators[] = {"vcc", "iovcc"}; > trivial - slight preference for > { "vcc", "iovcc" }; > > This isn't as important as for numeric values as we get some readability > from the quotes but still nice to have.
Right. I'll fix it.
> For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not > to have the static marking but I don't care that much. >
I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know this myself until Sebastian educated me :) Hence my strong preference on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many of arrays - or when they contain large data.
Yours -- Matti
-- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
| |