On 11/26/2013 04:45 PM, Stefan Agner wrote:

Depending on version, the voltage table might be different. Add version
compatibility to the regulator information in order to select correct
voltage table.

-static const unsigned int tps6586x_ldo4_voltages[] = {
+static const unsigned int tps6586x_ldo4_sm2_voltages[] = {

+static const unsigned int tps658643_sm2_voltages[] = {

What's the logic behind the "ldo4_sm2" v.s. "sm2" naming? Does it match
the data sheet in some way? If not, it might be better to name this
something like "tps6586x_ldo4_voltages" and "tps65863_ldo4_voltages".

-#define TPS6586X_REGULATOR(_id, _pin_name, vdata, vreg, shift, nbits,	\
-			   ereg0, ebit0, ereg1, ebit1, goreg, gobit)	\
+#define TPS6586X_REG(_ver, _id, _pin_name, vdata, vreg, shift,	nbits,	\
+		     ereg0, ebit0, ereg1, ebit1, goreg, gobit)		\

Why rename the macro?

There's an embedded TAB before "nbits".

+/* Add version specific entries before any */
 static struct tps6586x_regulator tps6586x_regulator[] = {
 	TPS6586X_SYS_REGULATOR(),
-	TPS6586X_LDO(LDO_0, "vinldo01", ldo0, SUPPLYV1, 5, 3, ENC, 0, END, 0),

...

+	TPS6586X_LDO(TPS6586X_ANY, LDO_0, "vinldo01", tps6586x_ldo0, SUPPLYV1,
+			5, 3, ENC, 0, END, 0),

Rather than changing all the macros and table entries, wouldn't it be
much simpler to:

1) Make tps6586x_regulator[] only contain all the common regulator
definitions.

2) Add new version-specific tables for each version of regulator, so
tps6586x_other_regulator[] and tps65863_regulator[].

3) Have probe() walk multiple tables of regulators, selecting which
tables to walk based on version.

That would result in a much smaller and less invasive diff.