Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200609080001.121499-1-pihsun@chromium.org> <20200609080001.121499-3-pihsun@chromium.org>
 <20200609111919.GB4583@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20200609111919.GB4583@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Pi-Hsun Shih <pihsun@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:31:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CANdKZ0dDHo-bjX2AT0GiTPoDmY2jNNSGkTcGb-f9j1mPoecNkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: Add driver for cros-ec-regulator
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Fabien Lahoudere <fabien.lahoudere@collabora.com>,
        Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@google.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for the review, some inline reply:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 7:19 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 03:59:55PM +0800, Pi-Hsun Shih wrote:
>
> > +static int cros_ec_regulator_set_state(struct regulator_dev *dev, bool enable)
> > +{
> > +     struct cros_ec_regulator_data *data = rdev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +     struct ec_params_regulator_enable cmd = {
> > +             .index = data->index,
> > +             .enable = enable ? 1 : 0,
>
> The ternery operator is totally redundant here.
Ack, would fix in v2.

>
> > +static int cros_ec_regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > +     return cros_ec_regulator_set_state(dev, true);
> > +}
>
> > +static int cros_ec_regulator_disable(struct regulator_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > +     return cros_ec_regulator_set_state(dev, false);
> > +}
>
> I'm not sure that the shared function is really worthwhile though,
> there's not really enough in it and certainly not anything complicated.
Ack, would fix in v2.

>
> > +static int cros_ec_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *dev, int min_uV,
> > +                                      int max_uV, unsigned int *selector)
> > +{
> > +     struct cros_ec_regulator_data *data = rdev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +     int min_mV = DIV_ROUND_UP(min_uV, 1000);
> > +     int max_mV = max_uV / 1000;
> > +     struct ec_params_regulator_set_voltage cmd = {
> > +             .index = data->index,
> > +             .min_mv = min_mV,
> > +             .max_mv = max_mV,
> > +     };
> > +
> > +     if (min_mV > max_mV)
> > +             return -EINVAL;
>
> The core will do this for you.
Since I'm doing DIV_ROUND_UP for the min_mV, so this may happen if the
min_uV~max_uV range given by the core doesn't contain any value that
can be represented exactly in mV.

>
> > +     ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "google,remote-regulator",
> > +                                &drvdata->index);
> > +     if (ret < 0)
> > +             return ret;
>
> This remote-regulator property is a bit weird, it feels like it should
> be a reg property on a bus.
Ok I'll change this to reg property in v2.

>
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
> > +static const struct of_device_id regulator_cros_ec_of_match[] = {
> > +     { .compatible = "regulator-cros-ec", },
> > +     {},
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, regulator_cros_ec_of_match);
> > +#endif
>
> Your compatible is google,regulator-cros-ec.
Ack, would fix in v2.