Hi Marek, On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:07:28AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:59:11PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Rather than hard-coding the quirk topology, which stopped scaling, > > parse the information from DT. The code looks for all compatible > > PMICs -- da9036 and da9210 -- and checks if their IRQ line is tied > > to the same pin. If so, the code sends a matching sequence to the > > PMIC to deassert the IRQ. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > > Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <[email protected]> > > Cc: Simon Horman <[email protected]> > > Cc: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]>
From an I2C point of view: Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <[email protected]> Minor nits: > > @@ -122,7 +143,13 @@ static struct notifier_block regulator_quirk_nb = { > > > > static int __init rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk(void) > > { > > - u32 mon; > > + struct device_node *np; > > + const struct of_device_id *id; > > + struct regulator_quirk *quirk; > > + struct regulator_quirk *pos; Merge the last two lines into one? > > + struct of_phandle_args *argsa, *argsb; > > + u32 mon, addr; > > + int ret; > > > > if (!of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,koelsch") && > > !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,lager") && > > @@ -130,6 +157,45 @@ static int __init rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk(void) > > !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,gose")) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > + for_each_matching_node_and_match(np, rcar_gen2_quirk_match, &id) { > > + if (!np || !of_device_is_available(np)) Can '!np' actually happen? This is the exit condition of the for-loop, or am I overlooking something? Regards, Wolfram
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
