Bhargav Raviprakash <[email protected]> writes:
> Add support for TPS65224 PMIC in the TPS6594 driver as they share
> significant functional overlap.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bhargav Raviprakash <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c
> index 5afb1736f..7ec66d31b 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> /*
> - * SPI access driver for TI TPS6594/TPS6593/LP8764 PMICs
> + * SPI access driver for TI TPS65224/TPS6594/TPS6593/LP8764 PMICs
> *
> * Copyright (C) 2023 BayLibre Incorporated - https://www.baylibre.com/
> */
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static int tps6594_spi_reg_write(void *context, unsigned int reg, unsigned int v
> return spi_write(spi, buf, count);
> }
>
> -static const struct regmap_config tps6594_spi_regmap_config = {
> +static struct regmap_config tps6594_spi_regmap_config = {
> .reg_bits = 16,
> .val_bits = 8,
> .max_register = TPS6594_REG_DWD_FAIL_CNT_REG,
> @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id tps6594_spi_of_match_table[] = {
> { .compatible = "ti,tps6594-q1", .data = (void *)TPS6594, },
> { .compatible = "ti,tps6593-q1", .data = (void *)TPS6593, },
> { .compatible = "ti,lp8764-q1", .data = (void *)LP8764, },
> + { .compatible = "ti,tps65224-q1", .data = (void *)TPS65224, },
> {}
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tps6594_spi_of_match_table);
> @@ -101,15 +102,18 @@ static int tps6594_spi_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> tps->reg = spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0);
> tps->irq = spi->irq;
>
> - tps->regmap = devm_regmap_init(dev, NULL, spi, &tps6594_spi_regmap_config);
> - if (IS_ERR(tps->regmap))
> - return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(tps->regmap), "Failed to init regmap\n");
> -
> match = of_match_device(tps6594_spi_of_match_table, dev);
> if (!match)
> return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "Failed to find matching chip ID\n");
> tps->chip_id = (unsigned long)match->data;
>
> + if (tps->chip_id == TPS65224)
> + tps6594_spi_regmap_config.volatile_table = &tps65224_volatile_table;
Similar to my comment on the i2c series, but to be more specific:
Rather than use the .data pointer in the of_match_table as simply a
chip_id, instead make that into a struct that can contain chip-specific
values/pointers etc, and then each compatible can have a custom struct
(if needed.)
This way, at probe/match time, all the chip-specific data is setup using
that struct, so that at runtime, there doesn't need to be any "if
(chip_id)" checking.
Kevin
Hello Kevin,
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:10:17 -0800, Kevin wrote:
> Bhargav Raviprakash <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Add support for TPS65224 PMIC in the TPS6594 driver as they share
> > significant functional overlap.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bhargav Raviprakash <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c
> > index 5afb1736f..7ec66d31b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps6594-spi.c
> > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > /*
> > - * SPI access driver for TI TPS6594/TPS6593/LP8764 PMICs
> > + * SPI access driver for TI TPS65224/TPS6594/TPS6593/LP8764 PMICs
> > *
> > * Copyright (C) 2023 BayLibre Incorporated - https://www.baylibre.com/
> > */
> > @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static int tps6594_spi_reg_write(void *context, unsigned int reg, unsigned int v
> > return spi_write(spi, buf, count);
> > }
> >
> > -static const struct regmap_config tps6594_spi_regmap_config = {
> > +static struct regmap_config tps6594_spi_regmap_config = {
> > .reg_bits = 16,
> > .val_bits = 8,
> > .max_register = TPS6594_REG_DWD_FAIL_CNT_REG,
> > @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id tps6594_spi_of_match_table[] = {
> > { .compatible = "ti,tps6594-q1", .data = (void *)TPS6594, },
> > { .compatible = "ti,tps6593-q1", .data = (void *)TPS6593, },
> > { .compatible = "ti,lp8764-q1", .data = (void *)LP8764, },
> > + { .compatible = "ti,tps65224-q1", .data = (void *)TPS65224, },
> > {}
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tps6594_spi_of_match_table);
> > @@ -101,15 +102,18 @@ static int tps6594_spi_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> > tps->reg = spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0);
> > tps->irq = spi->irq;
> >
> > - tps->regmap = devm_regmap_init(dev, NULL, spi, &tps6594_spi_regmap_config);
> > - if (IS_ERR(tps->regmap))
> > - return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(tps->regmap), "Failed to init regmap\n");
> > -
> > match = of_match_device(tps6594_spi_of_match_table, dev);
> > if (!match)
> > return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "Failed to find matching chip ID\n");
> > tps->chip_id = (unsigned long)match->data;
> >
> > + if (tps->chip_id == TPS65224)
> > + tps6594_spi_regmap_config.volatile_table = &tps65224_volatile_table;
>
> Similar to my comment on the i2c series, but to be more specific:
>
> Rather than use the .data pointer in the of_match_table as simply a
> chip_id, instead make that into a struct that can contain chip-specific
> values/pointers etc, and then each compatible can have a custom struct
> (if needed.)
>
> This way, at probe/match time, all the chip-specific data is setup using
> that struct, so that at runtime, there doesn't need to be any "if
> (chip_id)" checking.
>
> Kevin
Thanks for the feedback!
We will implement the same in the next version.
Regards,
Bhargav