Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-86858-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:42:50 +0100
Message-Id: <CZHN4S2QW6MY.KKKHHRPPY4ZG@baylibre.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add TI TPS65224
 PMIC regulators
From: "Esteban Blanc" <eblanc@baylibre.com>
To: "Bhargav Raviprakash" <bhargav.r@ltts.com>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240223093701.66034-1-bhargav.r@ltts.com>
 <20240223093701.66034-13-bhargav.r@ltts.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240223093701.66034-13-bhargav.r@ltts.com>

On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 10:36 AM CET, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote:
> From: Nirmala Devi Mal Nadar <m.nirmaladevi@ltts.com>

> @@ -122,6 +131,27 @@ static const struct linear_range ldos_4_ranges[] =3D=
 {
>  	REGULATOR_LINEAR_RANGE(1200000, 0x20, 0x74, 25000),
>  };
> =20
> +/* Voltage range for TPS65224 Bucks and LDOs */
> +static const struct linear_range tps65224_bucks_1_ranges[] =3D {

You prefixed your arrays with `tps65224` and that makes sense. However
you should also prefix the old ones with `tps6594` then.
This applies to the whole driver.

> @@ -374,11 +518,17 @@ static int tps6594_request_reg_irqs(struct platform=
_device *pdev,
>  {
>  	struct tps6594_regulator_irq_type *irq_type;
>  	struct tps6594 *tps =3D dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> -	int j;
> +	size_t j;
>  	int irq;
>  	int error;
> +	size_t interrupt_cnt;
> =20
> -	for (j =3D 0; j < REGS_INT_NB; j++) {
> +	/* Number of interrupts supported by each voltage source */
> +	interrupt_cnt =3D (tps->chip_id =3D=3D TPS6594) ?
> +			 ARRAY_SIZE(tps6594_buck1_irq_types) :
> +			 ARRAY_SIZE(tps65224_buck1_irq_types);

The comment is not adding anything, the name is clear and ARRAY_SIZE is
quite explicit.

> +		for (i =3D 0; i < LDO_NB; i++) {
> +			if (ldo_configured[i] =3D=3D 1)
> +				continue;
> =20
> -			error =3D tps6594_request_reg_irqs(pdev, rdev, irq_data,
> -							 tps6594_ldos_irq_types[i],
> -							 &irq_idx);
> -			if (error)
> -				return error;
> +		struct tps6594_regulator_irq_type **ldos_irq_types =3D (tps->chip_id =
=3D=3D TPS65224) ?
> +								       tps65224_ldos_irq_types :
> +								       tps6594_ldos_irq_types;
> +
> +		const struct regulator_desc *ldo_regs =3D (tps->chip_id =3D=3D TPS6522=
4) ?
> +							 tps65224_ldo_regs :
> +							 tps6594_ldo_regs;
> +
> +		rdev =3D devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &ldo_regs[i], &config);
> +		if (IS_ERR(rdev))
> +			return dev_err_probe(tps->dev, PTR_ERR(rdev),
> +					     "failed to register %s regulator\n", pdev->name);
> +
> +		error =3D tps6594_request_reg_irqs(pdev, rdev, irq_data, ldos_irq_type=
s[i], &irq_idx);
> +		if (error)
> +			return error;

There is an indentation missing on the content of the `for` loop.

Best regards,

--=20
Esteban "Skallwar" Blanc
BayLibre