Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:14:20 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        lgirdwood@gmail.com, jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com,
        henryc.chen@mediatek.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, chen.zhong@mediatek.com,
        chenglin.xu@mediatek.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20170623161420.tbhn6sjuz7jjhaiu@sirena.org.uk>
References: <cover.1496425268.git.sean.wang@mediatek.com>
 <4276ab23ae0bbb6a54b1add98c4dc668f1a69c50.1496425268.git.sean.wang@mediatek.com>
 <20170606182224.sifkfod7hehadjvm@sirena.org.uk>
 <1498233365.20651.25.camel@mtkswgap22>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k53afb2dqusyixlj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1498233365.20651.25.camel@mtkswgap22>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] regulator: mt6380: Add support for MT6380
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2559
Lines: 64


--k53afb2dqusyixlj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:56:05PM +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 19:22 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > +	return (regval & info->desc.enable_mask) ?
> > > +		REGULATOR_STATUS_ON : REGULATOR_STATUS_OFF;

> > This isn't really a get_status() operation - it's just showing the
> > status of the enable we set.  The get_status() operation is for hardware
> > that has a mechanism for reading back the current physical status of the
> > regulator, usually including things like if it's in regulation or not.

> > Also please write normal conditional statements, it helps people read
> > the code.

> for the hardware, the way for reflect the current physical physical=20
> has to depend on the bit reading as the bit we enable. It indeed tends
> to confuse other users and developers, we maybe can add some comments
> for this to avoid.

It's OK to just not have a get_status() operation - a lot of regulators
just can't do this and that's fine, the subsystem will cope.

> > > +static const struct of_device_id mt6380_of_match[] =3D {
> > > +	{ .compatible =3D "mediatek,mt6380-regulator", },
> > > +	{ /* sentinel */ },
> > > +};
> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6380_of_match);

> > Given that this driver is entirely specific to the parent PMIC there
> > should be no need for a separate compatible string, it's redundant.

> the parent of pmic is MediaTek pwrap which is possibly being used with
> various pmics such as MT6323, MT6797, MT6380 and so on. So extra
> matching we thought is required to identify which pmic is actually being
> connected.=20

> For those opinions, maybe we didn't get your exact point. If something
> is wrong, please kindly guide us to the right place.

It sounds like pwrap should be a bus rather than using a platform device
here?  But I guess that's how things are for now so OK.

--k53afb2dqusyixlj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAllNPlsACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DyMwf/XQhcLIYfJxi38/uKMGVW9S69KL+OCbRC3UJL4c2FJg5sw7xTwMB0TT5k
IQIizhYXwqp1fS6sqUAnUkyixJ4ny7O4NqgxGMDFD/Fh1XEiakBr7ZCMUODiTfVJ
nYtySpogQJ5TMydkOKE7kixEKiRG7J/luy0euOjAYnZzU5Gqb/it6bEmF1d+JCH7
L3iw0m/EpS0TLn/qWCjUE6dCgOe3eqYiavQdaivAR8bmwGtILosjNOSGBaQY5Uf0
VPmUsERUHY9gUE2rbhJPhfm1zX1Ov8Zr/Nw14sj7NAXAO90EYvpi00AWBm3gdpWP
ls4qJ8IGQRSsDnA1JgEuz3waYmZEBw==
=sSkW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--k53afb2dqusyixlj--