by Yi Zhang

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mfd: 88pm88x: initialize 88pm886/88pm880 base support

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:20:18PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Yi Zhang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:32:48AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Yi Zhang wrote:
> > >
> > > > 88pm886 and 88pm880 are combo PMIC chip, which integrates
> > > > regulator, onkey, rtc, gpadc, charger, fuelgauge function;
> > > >
> > > > this patch add the basic support for them, adding related resource, such as
> > > > interrupt, preparing for the client-device driver
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yi Zhang <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/mfd/88pm880-table.c | 173 ++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/mfd/88pm886-table.c | 173 ++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/mfd/88pm88x-core.c | 584 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/mfd/88pm88x-i2c.c | 167 ++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/mfd/88pm88x-irq.c | 171 ++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/mfd/88pm88x.h | 51 ++++
> >
> > Thanks very much for your patience on such a long patch, it is my
> > fault, I will modify according to your precious comments and split
> > them in the next version, thanks very much;
>
> You are welcome.
>
> [...] /* Cut 100's of lines where you were agreeing with me */
>
> In future, please cut all of the lines that you agree with me and only
> leave in the useful or contentious items.

Thanks, I need to pay attention to the etiquette, reading such a long
mail is absolutly not a good experience, my fault, sorry;
>
> > > > + chip->ldo_page_addr = client->addr + 1;
> > > > + chip->power_page_addr = client->addr + 1;
> > > > + chip->gpadc_page_addr = client->addr + 2;
> > > > + chip->battery_page_addr = client->addr + 3;
> > > > + chip->buck_page_addr = client->addr + 4;
> > > > + chip->test_page_addr = client->addr + 7;
> > >
> > > I have no idea what's going on here, but it's almost certainly not
> > > correct. Instead of separating these out per device have a base
> > > address and create DEFINES for each of them.
> >
> > it is because this PMIC has several i2c address, each has different
> > function, the offset vesus the client->addr is fixed, the client->addr
> > is 0x30 from device tree, then the gpadc_page_addr is 0x32, that is
> > why I use client->addr + 2;
> >
> > you mean the DEFINES are better?
>
> I do mean that, yes. If you don't want supply nodes for each of the
> client devices (what is the reason for that?), then just supply the
> base address and use DEFINES to obtain the offsets.

I got your point.
>
> [...] /* Lots more 'yes's removed */
>
> > > > + ret = mfd_add_devices(chip->dev, 0, common_cell_devs,
> > >
> > > What does 0 mean?
> >
> > I should use -1 here, though it _seems_ works..
>
> Please use the pre-allocated platform DEFINEs for them.

Clear now;
>
> [...]
>
> > > > + for (;;)
> > > > + cpu_relax();
> > >
> > > What's the point of this?
> >
> > I just would like to busy loop at the end of the power_off callback;
>
> Is that when you're meant to do? Why can't you just return?

Just return is a good idea, my intention is trying to invoke the
user's attention that the power off fails..
>
> [...]
>
> > > > +#define CELL_DEV(_name, _r, _compatible, _id) { \
> > > > + .name = _name, \
> > > > + .of_compatible = _compatible, \
> > > > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(_r), \
> > > > + .resources = _r, \
> > > > + .id = _id, \
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > This is not required.
> > >
> > > If you feel the need for an MFD Cell macro, you probably have too many
> > > MFD cells and you have done something wrong..
> >
> > Yes, I should use one MFD to cover regulators and one MFD to cover
> > LEDs, I will remember this lesson; thanks;
>
> That wasn't what I was saying. Just remove the MACRO and add the
> information into the cells like all the other MFD drivers do.

Got your point, I will remove them and clean up the regulator part;
thanks;
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Lee Jones
> Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog