Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] mfd: max597x: Add support for MAX5970 and MAX5978

[Naresh Solanki]

Hi Lee,

On 14-11-2022 02:41 pm, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> > On 07-11-2022 03:06 pm, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, 03 Nov 2022, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Implement a regulator driver with IRQ support for fault management.
> > >
> > > This is not a "regulator driver".
> > >
> > > > Written against documentation [1] and [2] and tested on real hardware.
> > > >
> > > > Every channel has its own regulator supplies nammed 'vss1-supply' and
> > > > 'vss2-supply'. The regulator supply is used to determine the output
> > > > voltage, as the smart switch provides no output regulation.
> > > > The driver requires the 'shunt-resistor-micro-ohms' property to be
> > > > present in Device Tree to properly calculate current related
> > > > values.
> > > >
> > > > Datasheet links:
> > > > 1: https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ds/MAX5970.pdf
> > > > 2: https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ds/MAX5978.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [...]
Patrick & Marcello worked on the patch. I'm upstreaming it. Will update 
it as:
Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Co-Developed-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

ok?

> > > > +static const struct of_device_id max597x_of_match[] = {
> > > > +	{ .compatible = "maxim,max5970", .data = (void *)MAX597x_TYPE_MAX5970 },
> > > > +	{ .compatible = "maxim,max5978", .data = (void *)MAX597x_TYPE_MAX5978 },
> > >
> > > Where is .data used?
> > The .data isn't used.
>
> Then why add it?
Yes. Will remove that in next version.
> [...]
>
> > > > +#include <linux/device.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Number of switch based on chip variant */
> > >
> > > This comment is superfluous.
> > You mean this comment should be removed ?
>
> I do.
Sure will remove.
> > > > +#define MAX5970_NUM_SWITCHES 2
> > > > +#define MAX5978_NUM_SWITCHES 1
> > > > +/* Both chip variant have 4 indication LEDs used by LED cell */
> > >
> > > Here too I think.
> > >
> > > > +#define MAX597X_NUM_LEDS     4
> > > > +
> > > > +enum max597x_chip_type {
> > > > +	MAX597x_TYPE_MAX5978 = 1,
> > >
> > > Why 1?
> > MAX5978 & single power switch wheres MAX5970 has two.
>
> That's not what this enum means.
>
> You are just describing the type to be matched on.
>
> The value should be arbitrary, no?
Yes you are right. And thats how its being used.
Setting the first enum value to 1 was to avoid zero.
> [...]
>
> > > > +#define  OC_STATUS_WARN(ch)				BIT(ch)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define MAX5970_REG_CHXEN				0x3b
> > > > +#define  CHXEN(ch)						(3 << (ch * 2))
> > > > +
> > > > +#define MAX5970_REG_LED_FLASH			0x43
> > >
> > > Do these all need to be shared?
> > >
> > > Or can they be isolated into, say, the Regulator driver?
> > Shared reg.
>
> Where else are they used?
The respective cell regulator/iio & led driver.

Regards,
Naresh