Hello Lee,

On Tue, 2021-02-09 at 14:55 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

quoted

Add core support for ROHM BD9576MUF and BD9573MUF PMICs which are
mainly used to power the R-Car series processors.

Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <redacted>
---
+
+static struct mfd_cell bd9573_mfd_cells[] = {
+	{ .name = "bd9573-pmic", },
+	{ .name = "bd9576-wdt", },
+};
+
+static struct mfd_cell bd9576_mfd_cells[] = {
+	{ .name = "bd9576-pmic", },
+	{ .name = "bd9576-wdt", },
+};

What is a PMIC in this context?

To me a PMIC is a bunch of devices.  What is this probing?

I agree. PMIC is the IC as a whole. This name was not the best one. 

Maybe this is *-regulator?

That would be more descriptive and I can change this. However, it means
I need to change the already applied regulator part too. Furthermore,
all other ROHM PMIC drivers I've written use the <part-name>-pmic for
regulators and so does a few other drivers at least for ICs from Maxim,
Samsung and TI. That's why I don't think the <partname>-pmic is that
confusing. If it was my decision, I would stick with the pmic for the
sake of the consistency.

+

quoted

+	ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, mfd,
cells,

This nomenclature is confusing.

cells and num_cells would clear it up.

I can change it.
+

quoted

+#define BD957X_MAX_REGISTER 0x61

Nit: Can you tab these out for improved readability please?

Sure, no problem.

Thanks for the review!

Best Regards
	--Matti

--
Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland
SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU
FINLAND

~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished ~~~

Simon says - in Latin please.
"non cogito me" dixit Rene Descarte, deinde evanescavit

(Thanks for the translation Simon)