RE: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
On 24 May 2018 15:51 Marek Vasut wrote:
Hi Marek,
> To: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+rene...@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>; Mark Brown
> <broo...@kernel.org>; Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>;
> linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
>
> On 05/24/2018 02:32 PM, Steve Twiss wrote:
> > On 24 May 2018 @ 12:49 Steve Twiss wrote:
> >>> On 23 May 2018 12:43 Marek Vasut wrote,
> >>>
> >>> To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> >>> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
> >>>
> >>> Add support for DA9063L, which is a reduced variant of the DA9063 with
> >>> less regulators and without RTC.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There's potentially more to this file. Without an RTC the regmap
> >> access tables would change and the usual DA9063 (BB silicon) tables would
> >> become invalid.
> >> The tables for da9063_bb_readable_ranges, da9063_bb_writeable_ranges,
> >> da9063_bb_volatile_ranges, would need to be updated for DA9063L, if a new
> >> chip model was needed.
> >>
> >> The new ranges would be this (see below), and would remove any RTC
> >> accesses in the new chip model.
> >>
> >> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_readable_ranges[] = {
> >>{
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_T_OFFSET,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_CHIP_ID,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_CHIP_VARIANT,
> >>},
> >> };
> >>
> >> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_writeable_ranges[] = {
> >>{
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_FAULT_LOG,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_VSYS_MON,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONFIG_I,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_4,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_0,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
> >>},
> >> };
> >>
> >> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_volatile_ranges[] = {
> >>{
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_A,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_B,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_E,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_F,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_BCORE2_CONT,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_LDO11_CONT,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_DVC_1,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_ADC_MAN,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_ADC_RES_L,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
> >>}, {
> >>.range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_5,
> >>.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_6,
> >>},
> >> };
> >>
> >> However this is a larger and more wide-ranging change compared to the
> >> one proposed by Marek, and would require other alterations to fit
> >> this in. Also I'm undecided to what it would r
RE: [PATCH 3/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L type
On 23 May 2018 12:42 Marek Vasut wrote:
> To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+rene...@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>; Mark Brown
> <broo...@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>; Wolfram
> Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 3/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L type
>
> Add type for DA9063L, which is a reduced variant of the DA9063 without RTC
> block and with less regulators.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h
> b/include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h index eb234582dcb2..c3e917dd1860 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
>
> enum da9063_type {
> PMIC_TYPE_DA9063 = 0,
> + PMIC_TYPE_DA9063L,
> };
>
> enum da9063_variant_codes {
> --
> 2.16.2
Acked-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
Regards,
Steve
RE: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: da9063: Disallow RTC on DA9063L
Thanks Marek,
On 23 May 2018 12:42 Marek Vasut wrote,
> To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+rene...@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>; Mark Brown
> <broo...@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>; Wolfram
> Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: da9063: Disallow RTC on DA9063L
>
> The DA9063L does not contain RTC block, unlike the full DA9063.
> Do not allow binding RTC driver on this variant of the chip.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c | 18 +++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c index
> 7360b76b4f72..263c83006413 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> @@ -101,14 +101,14 @@ static const struct mfd_cell da9063_devs[] = {
> .of_compatible = "dlg,da9063-onkey",
> },
> {
> + .name = DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION,
> + },
> + { /* Only present on DA9063 , not on DA9063L */
> .name = DA9063_DRVNAME_RTC,
> .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_rtc_resources),
> .resources = da9063_rtc_resources,
> .of_compatible = "dlg,da9063-rtc",
> },
> - {
> - .name = DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION,
> - },
> };
>
> static int da9063_clear_fault_log(struct da9063 *da9063) @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@
> int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned int irq) {
> struct da9063_pdata *pdata = da9063->dev->platform_data;
> int model, variant_id, variant_code;
> - int ret;
> + int da9063_devs_len, ret;
>
> ret = da9063_clear_fault_log(da9063);
> if (ret < 0)
> @@ -225,9 +225,13 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned
> int irq)
>
> da9063->irq_base = regmap_irq_chip_get_base(da9063->regmap_irq);
>
> - ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs,
> - ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs), NULL, da9063->irq_base,
> - NULL);
> + da9063_devs_len = ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs);
> + /* RTC, the last device in the list, is only present on DA9063 */
> + if (da9063->type == PMIC_TYPE_DA9063L)
> + da9063_devs_len -= 1;
> +
> + ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs, da9063_devs_len,
> + NULL, da9063->irq_base, NULL);
> if (ret)
> dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n");
>
> --
> 2.16.2
MFD cells definitely has less impact than regmap_range and regmap_irq.
I agree, there's no point in having a completely new
static const struct mfd_cell da9063l_devs[] = { ... } for DA9063L
Acked-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
Regards,
Steve
RE: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
Hi Marek,
On 24 May 2018 @ 12:49 Steve Twiss wrote:
> To: Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com>; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+rene...@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>; Mark Brown
> <broo...@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>; Wolfram
> Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
>
> Thanks Marek,
>
> > On 23 May 2018 12:43 Marek Vasut wrote,
> >
> > To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert+rene...@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>;
> > Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss
> > <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>; Wolfram Sang
> > <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
> >
> > Add support for DA9063L, which is a reduced variant of the DA9063 with less
> > regulators and without RTC.
> >
>
> There's potentially more to this file. Without an RTC the regmap access
> tables would change
> and the usual DA9063 (BB silicon) tables would become invalid.
> The tables for da9063_bb_readable_ranges, da9063_bb_writeable_ranges,
> da9063_bb_volatile_ranges,
> would need to be updated for DA9063L, if a new chip model was needed.
>
> The new ranges would be this (see below), and would remove any RTC accesses
> in the new chip model.
>
> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_readable_ranges[] = {
> {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_T_OFFSET,
> .range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_CHIP_ID,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_CHIP_VARIANT,
> },
> };
>
> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_writeable_ranges[] = {
> {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_FAULT_LOG,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_VSYS_MON,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_CONFIG_I,
> .range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_4,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_0,
> .range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
> },
> };
>
> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_volatile_ranges[] = {
> {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_A,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_B,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_E,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_F,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_BCORE2_CONT,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_LDO11_CONT,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_DVC_1,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_ADC_MAN,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_ADC_RES_L,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_5,
> .range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_6,
> },
> };
>
> However this is a larger and more wide-ranging change compared to the one
> proposed by Marek,
> and would require other alterations to fit this in. Also I'm undecided to
> what it would really add
> apart from a new chip model: I have been told accessing the DA9063 RTC
> register locations has no
> effect in the DA9063L.
Looking at this further, there is also a new IRQ regmap.
Again this comes down to whether a full chip model is needed or not. If not,
then the IRQ map does not
n
RE: [PATCH 1/6] mfd: da9063: Rename PMIC_DA9063 to PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063
Hi Marek,
On 23 May 2018 12:42 Marek Vasut wrote:
> To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+rene...@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>; Mark Brown
> <broo...@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>; Wolfram
> Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 1/6] mfd: da9063: Rename PMIC_DA9063 to PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063
>
> The PMIC_DA9063 is a complete misnomer, it denotes the value of the
> DA9063 chip ID register, so rename it as such. It is also the value of chip
> ID register of DA9063L though, so drop the enum as all the
> DA9063 "models" share the same chip ID and thus the distinction will have to
> be made using DT or otherwise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c| 2 +-
> drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c | 2 +-
> drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h | 4 +---
> 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c index
> 6c2870d4e754..00b3caee4e21 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned
> int irq)
> dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot read chip model id.\n");
> return -EIO;
> }
> - if (model != PMIC_DA9063) {
> + if (model != PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063) {
> dev_err(da9063->dev, "Invalid chip model id: 0x%02x\n", model);
> return -ENODEV;
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c index
> 981805a2c521..7f84030c8d53 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static int da9063_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c) }
>
> static const struct i2c_device_id da9063_i2c_id[] = {
> - {"da9063", PMIC_DA9063},
> + { "da9063", PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063 },
> {},
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, da9063_i2c_id); diff --git
> a/drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c
> index 6a8f9cd69f52..87c884ae0064 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/da9063-regulator.c
> @@ -585,7 +585,7 @@ static struct da9063_dev_model regulators_models[] = {
> {
> .regulator_info = da9063_regulator_info,
> .n_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_regulator_info),
> - .dev_model = PMIC_DA9063,
> + .dev_model = PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063,
> },
> { }
> };
> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h
> b/include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h index f3ae65db4c86..664f650d0086 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/da9063/core.h
> @@ -29,9 +29,7 @@
> #define DA9063_DRVNAME_RTC "da9063-rtc"
> #define DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION "da9063-vibration"
>
> -enum da9063_models {
> - PMIC_DA9063 = 0x61,
> -};
> +#define PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063 0x61
>
> enum da9063_variant_codes {
> PMIC_DA9063_AD = 0x3,
> --
> 2.16.2
Acked-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
Regards,
Steve
RE: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
Thanks Marek,
> On 23 May 2018 12:43 Marek Vasut wrote,
>
> To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+rene...@glider.be>;
> Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>; Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>; Steve
> Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>;
> Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>;
> linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
>
> Add support for DA9063L, which is a reduced variant of the DA9063 with less
> regulators and without RTC.
>
There's potentially more to this file. Without an RTC the regmap access tables
would change and the
usual DA9063 (BB silicon) tables would become invalid.
The tables for da9063_bb_readable_ranges, da9063_bb_writeable_ranges,
da9063_bb_volatile_ranges,
would need to be updated for DA9063L, if a new chip model was needed.
The new ranges would be this (see below), and would remove any RTC accesses in
the new chip model.
static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_readable_ranges[] = {
{
.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_T_OFFSET,
.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_CHIP_ID,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_CHIP_VARIANT,
},
};
static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_writeable_ranges[] = {
{
.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_FAULT_LOG,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_VSYS_MON,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONFIG_I,
.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_4,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_0,
.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
},
};
static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_volatile_ranges[] = {
{
.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_A,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_B,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_E,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_F,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_BCORE2_CONT,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_LDO11_CONT,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_DVC_1,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_ADC_MAN,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_ADC_RES_L,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_5,
.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_6,
},
};
However this is a larger and more wide-ranging change compared to the one
proposed by Marek,
and would require other alterations to fit this in. Also I'm undecided to what
it would really add
apart from a new chip model: I have been told accessing the DA9063 RTC register
locations has
no effect in the DA9063L.
If the maintainers are happy with this, and if a chip model addition is really
needed in future
it can be added later if required.
Acked-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
Regards,
Steve
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c index
> 5544ce8e3363..84bbd2bbcd2a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ static struct regmap_config da9063_regmap_config = {
>
> static const struct of_device_id da9063_dt_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "dlg,da9063", },
> + { .comp
