Re: [PATCH 1/5] mfd: Add driver for Maxim 77802 Power Management IC

Hello Mark,

On 06/09/2014 09:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:37:46AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

quoted

+Optional node:
+- voltage-regulators : The regulators of max77802 have to be instantiated
+  under subnode named "voltage-regulators" using the following format.

Every other PMIC calls this node regulators...

Ok, I'll change for consistency.

quoted

+	regulator_name {
+		regulator-compatible = LDOn/BUCKn

regulator-compatible is deprecated, use the node name instead.

Ok.

quoted

+config MFD_MAX77802
+	bool "Maxim Integrated MAX77802 PMIC Support"

Why is this bool and not tristate?

I noticed that the majority of the mfd PMIC drivers were bool and not tristate
so I thought it was a convention. But nothing prevents this driver to be built
as a module so I'll change it to tristate.

quoted

+int max77802_irq_resume(struct max77802_dev *max77802)
+{
+	/*
+	 * The IRQ that woke us up may still need to be ACK'ed on resume.
+	 * If it isn't ever ACK'ed, future IRQs may not be delivered.
+	 */
+	if (max77802->irq)
+		max77802_irq_thread(0, max77802);
+
+	return 0;
+}

As covered in another subthread all this code looks like it should be
regmap-irq.

It seems so, I'll take that into account for v2.

quoted

+	if (regmap_read(max77802->regmap,
+			 MAX77802_REG_DEVICE_ID, &data) < 0) {
+		dev_err(max77802->dev,
+			"device not found on this channel (this is not an error)\n");
+		return -ENODEV;

If this is not an error why is it printed as dev_err()?  It does look
like an error to me, though.

Yeah, it is an error so I'll clean that message.

quoted

+	} else {
+		dev_info(max77802->dev, "device found\n");
+	}

These sort of prints are just noise, remove this unless there is some
revision information you can display.  It's also better practice to
check that the device ID is actually what was expected in case there was
an error in the DT.

Ok, will do.

quoted

+static const struct i2c_device_id max77802_i2c_id[] = {
+	{ "max77802", TYPE_MAX77802 },
+	{ }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max77802_i2c_id);

We have type information here but not in the OF ID table (not that we
ever look at it).

Yeah, I'll remove the type information here. It is a left over when trying to
combine both max77802 and max77686 drivers since in a combined driver we need
the type information.

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

Best regards,
Javier