On 06/05/2018 11:21 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > 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?
I had to take a look again, no, it's not needed. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
