On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:31:06 +0000
Lee Jones [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Andreas Kemnade wrote:

quoted

The RC5T619 has a RTC which is missing in the
RN5T618. Add it as subdevice to prepare for their implementation

Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
---
Changes in v3:
- alignment cleanup
 drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
index d78eb29b94a4..18d56a732b20 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c

@@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ static const struct mfd_cell rn5t618_cells[] = {
 	{ .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
 };
 
+static const struct mfd_cell rc5t619_cells[] = {
+	{ .name = "rn5t618-regulator" },
+	{ .name = "rc5t619-rtc" },
+	{ .name = "rn5t618-wdt" },
+};
+
 static bool rn5t618_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
 {
 	switch (reg) {

@@ -173,8 +179,14 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rn5t618_cells,
-				   ARRAY_SIZE(rn5t618_cells), NULL, 0, NULL);
+	if (priv->variant == RC5T619)
+		ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rc5t619_cells,  

Ref: The "-1", please use this as an opportunity to use the defines.

quoted

+					   ARRAY_SIZE(rc5t619_cells),
+					   NULL, 0, NULL);
+	else  

Are you sure it's not possible for 'variant' to be an unsupported
device?

Well, does it change the behavior for devices other than the rc5t619?
I do not think so. If the mfd driver is bound to unsupported devices,
rn5t618_of_match is wrong.

Or do you want separate cell arrays for each of the three variant now to
ease future extensions?

Regards,
Andreas