Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-65612-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>
To: Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@ltts.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: m.nirmaladevi@ltts.com, lee@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
 jpanis@baylibre.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
 gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org,
 linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, nm@ti.com, vigneshr@ti.com,
 kristo@kernel.org, Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@ltts.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 04/13] mfd: tps6594-i2c: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC I2C
In-Reply-To: <20240208105343.1212902-5-bhargav.r@ltts.com>
References: <20240208105343.1212902-1-bhargav.r@ltts.com>
 <20240208105343.1212902-5-bhargav.r@ltts.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:04:10 -0800
Message-ID: <7hplwz565x.fsf@baylibre.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Hello,

Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@ltts.com> writes:

> Add support for TPS65224 PMIC in TPS6594's I2C driver which has
> significant functional overlap.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r@ltts.com>

Thanks for the patch adding TPS65224 support

[...]

> @@ -216,15 +217,18 @@ static int tps6594_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>  	tps->reg = client->addr;
>  	tps->irq = client->irq;
>  
> -	tps->regmap = devm_regmap_init(dev, NULL, client, &tps6594_i2c_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_i2c_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_i2c_regmap_config.volatile_table = &tps65224_volatile_table;

minor nit: for chip-specific differnces like this, rather than do this
kind of "if" check here to update the regmap_config, instead use the
compatible match data have a separate i2c_regmap_config match table for
tps65224.

Kevin