Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-110549-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, 21 Mar 2024 19:16:43 +0100
Message-Id: <CZZMTZBZ5S7B.2HR8A6LEY08D4@matfyz.cz>
Cc: "Lee Jones" <lee@kernel.org>, "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        "Conor Dooley"
 <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        "Liam
 Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?utf-8?q?Duje_Mihanovi=C4=87?= <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>,
        <~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht>, <phone-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/5] mfd: add driver for Marvell 88PM886 PMIC
To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>
From: "Karel Balej" <balejk@matfyz.cz>
References: <20240311160110.32185-1-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20240311160110.32185-3-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20240321154211.GA13211@google.com> <CZZK759UU6G7.MFPYOI0HBB6I@matfyz.cz>
 <20240321162045.GC13211@google.com> <CZZL3MNOT0QG.2WDSNX9XD2RET@matfyz.cz>
 <879296b4-5186-4170-af3f-971787d28514@sirena.org.uk>
 <CZZLDK79D5VK.2VK3X59OHIY2Z@matfyz.cz>
 <45079e37-dde9-4310-a112-7af49f35ac77@sirena.org.uk>
 <CZZLVS3T3QIS.223XHI5OZ7UBG@matfyz.cz>
 <e9c7bd38-49cd-44c2-8842-292bc0b4205f@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <e9c7bd38-49cd-44c2-8842-292bc0b4205f@sirena.org.uk>

Mark Brown, 2024-03-21T17:48:28+00:00:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:32:03PM +0100, Karel Balej wrote:
> > Mark Brown, 2024-03-21T17:17:40+00:00:
>
> > > Do they both genuinely have the same maximum register?
>
> > They do according to the downstream driver which is my only reference.
> > In fact, there the driver defines the configs separately for each regma=
p
> > but with the same values.
>
> This is a downstream driver - are you sure it's got the best code
> quality?

No, that is why I have rewritten it and tried to improve on this. But
like I said, it is my only reference. Is there some other way to verify
this value (besides perhaps the datasheet)?

> I'm not seeing any references to registers with numbers as high as the
> maximum register that's there in your driver for example.

Indeed, I have performed the same check with the same findings. But that
doesn't necessarily mean that the maximum should be lower, no?

Do you have some specific modifications of my code in mind regarding
this?

Thank you,
K. B.