Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mfd: AXP22x: add support for APX221 PMIC

[Boris BREZILLON]

Hello Lee
On 20/05/2014 09:48, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> This patch introduces preliminary support for the X-Powers AXP221 PMIC.
>>>>> The AXP221 is typically used on boards using Allwinner's A31 SoC.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the moment, this driver only exposes regulator devices, but other
>>>>> subdevices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/Kconfig        |  12 +++
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/Makefile       |   1 +
>>>>>  drivers/mfd/axp22x.c       | 237 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  include/linux/mfd/axp22x.h | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  4 files changed, 399 insertions(+)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/axp22x.c
>>>>>  create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/axp22x.h
>>>> Not a chance.
>>>>
>>>> Farrrr, too much common code with axp20x.c - please merge into one file.
>>>>
>>> This was one of the questions I asked in my cover letter (could you take
>>> a look at it and tell me what's your prefered solution ?) ;-).
>>>
>>> I first tried to reuse the axp20x drivers, but ended up copying almost
>>> all definitions, hence I decided to first do a different driver and ask
>>> for advices.
>> I've just taken a good look at this (I'm planning on doing an axp152 driver
>> myself), and it seems that using a single mfd driver for the 20x and 221 should
>> be quite feasible:
>>
>> - axp20x.h would get some new register defines for registers which are
>>   different (or unique) to the 221 prefixed with aXP221
>> - An axp20x_writeable_ranges would need
>>   to be extended with a third range going from AXP221_BAT_CAP1 (0xe0)
>>   to AXP221_BAT_LOW_THRESH (0xe6)
>> - axp20x_writeable_table would get .n_yes_ranges set to 2, and a new
>>   apx22x_writeable_table would be introduced with n_yes_ranges set to 3.
>> - add a new axp221_supplies array
>> - add a new axp221_cells array
>> - and finally use the proper structs in axp20x_i2c_probe depending on the type
>>
>> Note that this means sharing ie the interrupt table, which is ok since they
>> are the same, except that the 221 has a couple of interrupts missing, but
>> the ones which are shared are all at the same place.
> Exactly.  As .probe() is identical, you only require some device
> matching and some extra structs where the data actually differs
> between devices.
>

I think you've applied this patch on your for-next tree by mistake.
As stated above, this driver should be merged with the axp20x one.

Best Regards,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/