Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, Karel Balej wrote:
> On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 4:25 PM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> > > > > unsigned int whoami;
> > > > > struct reg_sequence *presets;
> > > > > unsigned int num_presets;
> > > > > + struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > > > > + unsigned int num_devs;
> > > >
> > > > Why are you adding extra abstraction?
> > >
> > > Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
> > > support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
> > > as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
> > > abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
> > > is also chip-specific?
> >
> > Even if you were to support multiple devices, this strategy is unusual
> > and isn't likely to be accepted.
>
> May I please ask what the recommended strategy is then? `switch`ing on
> the chip ID? I have taken this approach because it seemed to produce a
> cleaner/more straightforward code in comparison to that. Or are you only
> talking about the chip cells/subdevices in particular?
I'd have to see the implementation, but the general exception I'm taking
here is storing the use-once MFD cell data inside a data structure. If
you were to match on device ID it's *sometimes* acceptable to store the
pointers in local variables.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series
On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 4:25 PM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
[...]
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> > > > unsigned int whoami;
> > > > struct reg_sequence *presets;
> > > > unsigned int num_presets;
> > > > + struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > > > + unsigned int num_devs;
> > >
> > > Why are you adding extra abstraction?
> >
> > Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
> > support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
> > as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
> > abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
> > is also chip-specific?
>
> Even if you were to support multiple devices, this strategy is unusual
> and isn't likely to be accepted.
May I please ask what the recommended strategy is then? `switch`ing on
the chip ID? I have taken this approach because it seemed to produce a
cleaner/more straightforward code in comparison to that. Or are you only
talking about the chip cells/subdevices in particular?
Thank you,
K. B.
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, Karel Balej wrote:
> Lee,
>
> On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 11:54 AM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
> > The subject needs work. Please tell us what the patches is doing.
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, Karel Balej wrote:
> >
> > > From: Karel Balej
> >
> > A full an complete commit message is a must.
>
> I have not provided a detailed description here because as I have noted
> in the cover letter, this patch will be squashed into the MFD series. I
> sent it only as a bridge between the two series, sorry for the
> confusion.
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> > > unsigned int whoami;
> > > struct reg_sequence *presets;
> > > unsigned int num_presets;
> > > + struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > > + unsigned int num_devs;
> >
> > Why are you adding extra abstraction?
>
> Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
> support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
> as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
> abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
> is also chip-specific?
Even if you were to support multiple devices, this strategy is unusual
and isn't likely to be accepted.
With respect to the other variables, you are in a better position to
know if they are still required. By the sounds of it, I'd suggest it
might be better to remove them.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series
Lee,
On Thu Jan 11, 2024 at 11:54 AM CET, Lee Jones wrote:
> The subject needs work. Please tell us what the patches is doing.
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, Karel Balej wrote:
>
> > From: Karel Balej
>
> A full an complete commit message is a must.
I have not provided a detailed description here because as I have noted
in the cover letter, this patch will be squashed into the MFD series. I
sent it only as a bridge between the two series, sorry for the
confusion.
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> > unsigned int whoami;
> > struct reg_sequence *presets;
> > unsigned int num_presets;
> > + struct mfd_cell *devs;
> > + unsigned int num_devs;
>
> Why are you adding extra abstraction?
Right, this is probably not necessary now since I'm only implementing
support for one of the chips - it's just that I keep thinking about it
as a driver for both of them and thus tend to write it a bit more
abstractly. Shall I then drop this and also the `presets` member which
is also chip-specific?
Thank you, best regards,
K. B.
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series
The subject needs work. Please tell us what the patches is doing.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, Karel Balej wrote:
> From: Karel Balej
A full an complete commit message is a must.
> Signed-off-by: Karel Balej
> ---
> drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c | 14 --
> include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c b/drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c
> index 5db6c65b667d..3424d88a58f6 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c
> @@ -57,16 +57,16 @@ static struct reg_sequence pm886_presets[] = {
> REG_SEQ0(PM88X_REG_BK_OSC_CTRL3, 0xc0),
> };
>
> -static struct resource onkey_resources[] = {
> +static struct resource pm88x_onkey_resources[] = {
> DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(PM88X_IRQ_ONKEY, "88pm88x-onkey"),
> };
>
> -static struct mfd_cell pm88x_devs[] = {
> +static struct mfd_cell pm886_devs[] = {
> {
> .name = "88pm88x-onkey",
> - .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(onkey_resources),
> - .resources = onkey_resources,
> - .id = -1,
> + .of_compatible = "marvell,88pm88x-onkey",
> + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pm88x_onkey_resources),
> + .resources = pm88x_onkey_resources,
> },
> };
>
> @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ static struct pm88x_data pm886_a1_data = {
> .whoami = PM886_A1_WHOAMI,
> .presets = pm886_presets,
> .num_presets = ARRAY_SIZE(pm886_presets),
> + .devs = pm886_devs,
> + .num_devs = ARRAY_SIZE(pm886_devs),
> };
>
> static const struct regmap_config pm88x_i2c_regmap = {
> @@ -157,7 +159,7 @@ static int pm88x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(>dev, 0, pm88x_devs,
> ARRAY_SIZE(pm88x_devs),
> + ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(>dev, 0, chip->data->devs,
> chip->data->num_devs,
> NULL, 0, regmap_irq_get_domain(chip->irq_data));
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(>dev, "Failed to add devices: %d\n", ret);
> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
> unsigned int whoami;
> struct reg_sequence *presets;
> unsigned int num_presets;
> + struct mfd_cell *devs;
> + unsigned int num_devs;
Why are you adding extra abstraction?
> };
>
> struct pm88x_chip {
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
[RFC PATCH 1/5] mfd: 88pm88x: differences with respect to the PMIC RFC series
From: Karel Balej
Signed-off-by: Karel Balej
---
drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c | 14 --
include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c b/drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c
index 5db6c65b667d..3424d88a58f6 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/88pm88x.c
@@ -57,16 +57,16 @@ static struct reg_sequence pm886_presets[] = {
REG_SEQ0(PM88X_REG_BK_OSC_CTRL3, 0xc0),
};
-static struct resource onkey_resources[] = {
+static struct resource pm88x_onkey_resources[] = {
DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(PM88X_IRQ_ONKEY, "88pm88x-onkey"),
};
-static struct mfd_cell pm88x_devs[] = {
+static struct mfd_cell pm886_devs[] = {
{
.name = "88pm88x-onkey",
- .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(onkey_resources),
- .resources = onkey_resources,
- .id = -1,
+ .of_compatible = "marvell,88pm88x-onkey",
+ .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pm88x_onkey_resources),
+ .resources = pm88x_onkey_resources,
},
};
@@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ static struct pm88x_data pm886_a1_data = {
.whoami = PM886_A1_WHOAMI,
.presets = pm886_presets,
.num_presets = ARRAY_SIZE(pm886_presets),
+ .devs = pm886_devs,
+ .num_devs = ARRAY_SIZE(pm886_devs),
};
static const struct regmap_config pm88x_i2c_regmap = {
@@ -157,7 +159,7 @@ static int pm88x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
if (ret)
return ret;
- ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(>dev, 0, pm88x_devs,
ARRAY_SIZE(pm88x_devs),
+ ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(>dev, 0, chip->data->devs,
chip->data->num_devs,
NULL, 0, regmap_irq_get_domain(chip->irq_data));
if (ret) {
dev_err(>dev, "Failed to add devices: %d\n", ret);
diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
index a34c57447827..9a335f6b9c07 100644
--- a/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
+++ b/include/linux/mfd/88pm88x.h
@@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct pm88x_data {
unsigned int whoami;
struct reg_sequence *presets;
unsigned int num_presets;
+ struct mfd_cell *devs;
+ unsigned int num_devs;
};
struct pm88x_chip {
--
2.43.0
