Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3d7f7814-6184-96c6-8087-6373a489ebc0@ti.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1903281009430.1448-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1903281009430.1448-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 15:29:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Memgo9LwgmZqGcDZpGz02qSLst2xdMhED6_fxJkLDBowg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: davinci: ohci-da8xx: model the vbus GPIO as a
 fixed regulator
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

czw., 28 mar 2019 o 15:11 Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> napisa=C5=
=82(a):
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>
> > >> Can you document why the current solution is not optimal? Is it to m=
ake
> > >> future device-tree conversion for these boards easier? Or?
> > >>
> > >
> > > It's sub-optimal from the HW modeling in SW PoV - it is in fact a
> > > regulator enabled/disabled by a GPIO. Also: it's code duplication as
> > > currently we check if the vbus GPIO exists and then use it or check i=
f
> > > the regulator exists and use this as the second choice. The third
> > > patch actually shrinks the driver.
> >
> > I see now that the driver supports controlling the VBUS gpio as
> > regulator already. Something I should have caught in review last time
> > around.
> >
> > I agree this patch is an improvement. Lets see what Alan feels.
>
> I'm not an expert on this stuff, but the patch looks reasonable.
> However, I do wish that in the devm_request_threaded_irq() call, the
> indentation of the continuation lines was left unchanged.
>

I don't think it's possible - the function name is longer and the
first line exceeds the 80 characters limit. I can put all the
parameters below the function name if you prefer that?

Bart

> Alan Stern
>
> > Also, reg_enabled member of da8xx_ohci_hcd structure seems to be pretty
> > useless considering regulator API already has use counting. Can you tak=
e
> > a look and remove that too as an added bonus.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sekhar
>
>