Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] mfd: rn5t618: add more subdevices
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
Date: 2019-12-17 19:27:03
Also in:
linux-rtc, lkml
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:25:26 +0100 Andreas Kemnade [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:01:46 +0000 Lee Jones [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Andreas Kemnade wrote:quoted
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:31:06 +0000 Lee Jones [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
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.BTW: of course I can clean that up.quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ ARRAY_SIZE(rc5t619_cells), + NULL, 0, NULL); + elseAre 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.Right, and can you catch that?Well, maybe we don't get each other. RC5T619 has an RTC. If I understand the code right, priv->variant is set to RC5T619. if there is compatible = "ricoh,rc5t619" in the device tree. So in that and only in that case I have an extended subdevice list, which includes the RTC subdevice instead of only regulator and wdt. For everything else I do not touch it.
Hmm, if the driver might be probed without device tree node,
there is:
of_id = of_match_device(rn5t618_of_match, &i2c->dev);
if (!of_id) {
dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to find matching DT ID\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
so nothing will be registered at all. So the only reasons I see the
driver might be bound to unsupported devices could be:
- a bug in of_match_device()
- nonsense in rn5t618_of_match (I think that are well-thought entries)
Regards,
Andreas