Hi Andy,
On 19. 3. 18. 오후 9:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 07:38:26PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>
>> Thanks for comment. I add my comments
>> and then you have to rebase it on latest v5.0-rc1
>> because the merge conflict happen on v5.0-rc1.
>
> Thanks for review, see my answers below.
> Non-answered items will be fixed accordingly.
>
>>>> +config EXTCON_INTEL_MRFLD
>>>
>>>> + tristate "Intel MErrifield Basin Cove PMIC extcon driver"
>>>
>>> ME -> Me (will be fixed)
>>>
>>>> + depends on INTEL_SOC_PMIC_MRFLD
>>
>> This driver uses the regmap interface. So, you better to add
>> following dependency?
>
>> - select REGMAP_I2C or REGMAP_SPI
>
> None of them fits this or MFD driver. See below.
>
>> But, if 'INTEL_SOC_PMIC_MRFLE' selects already REGMAP_*
>> configuration. It is not necessary.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> It selects REGMAP_IRQ which selects necessary bits from regmap API.
OK.
>
>>>> + help
>>>> + Say Y here to enable extcon support for charger detection / control
>>>> + on the Intel Merrifiel Basin Cove PMIC.
>>
>> What is correct word?
>> - Merrifield? is used on above
>> - Merrifiel?
>
> Merrifield is a correct one. Thanks for spotting this.
>
>>>> +static int mrfld_extcon_set(struct mrfld_extcon_data *data, unsigned int
>>>> reg,
>>>> + unsigned int mask)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return regmap_update_bits(data->regmap, reg, mask, 0xff);
>>>> +}
>>
>> mrfld_extcon_clear() and mrfld_extcon_set() are just wrapper function
>> for regmap interface. I think that you better to define
>> the meaningful defintion for '0x00' and '0xff' as following:
>>
>> (just example, you may make the more correct name)
>> #define INTEL_MRFLD_RESET 0x00
>> #define INTEL_MRFLD_SET 0xff
>
> It makes a little sense here, the idea is to reduce parameters.
>
> I could ideally write
> (..., mask, ~mask) for clear
> and
> (..., mask, mask) for set
>
>> And then you better to use the 'regmap_update_bits()' function
>> directly instead of mrfld_extcon_clear/set'.
>
> It will bring duplication of long definitions and reduce readability of the
> code.
Actually, it is not critical issue. If you don't agree my comments,
you keep your style on next version. I have no any strong objection.
>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * It seems SCU firmware clears the content of BCOVE_CHGRIRQ1
>>>> + * and makes it useless for OS. Instead we compare a previously
>>>> + * stored status to the current one, provided by BCOVE_SCHGRIRQ1.
>>>> + */
>>>> + ret = regmap_read(regmap, BCOVE_SCHGRIRQ1, &status);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!(status ^ data->status))
>>>> + return -ENODATA;
>>>> +
>>>> + if ((status ^ data->status) & BCOVE_CHGRIRQ_USBIDDET)
>>>> + ret = mrfld_extcon_role_detect(data);
>> This line gets the return value from mrfld_extcon_role_detect(data)
>> without any error handling and then the below line just saves 'status'
>> to 'data->status' regardless of 'ret' value.
>>
>> I think that you have to handle the error case of
>> 'ret = mrfld_extcon_role_detect(data)'.
>
> I'm not sure of the consequences of such change.
> I will give it some tests, and then will proceed accordingly.
OK. Thanks.
>
>>>> + .name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
>>
>> Where is the definition of KBUILD_MODNAME? Are you missing?
>
> In the Makefile.
> Nothing is missed here.
>
> But I could put its content explicitly here.
OK. Thanks.
>
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics
