Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add driver for TI TPS6594 regulators

[jerome Neanne]

> > +	enum {
> > +		MULTI_BUCK12,
> > +		MULTI_BUCK123,
> > +		MULTI_BUCK1234,
> > +		MULTI_BUCK12_34,
>
> > +		MULTI_FIRST = MULTI_BUCK12,
> > +		MULTI_LAST = MULTI_BUCK12_34,
> > +		MULTI_NUM = MULTI_LAST - MULTI_FIRST + 1
>
> 		MULT_NUM
>
> will suffice instead all this.
>
> > +	};
>
> But why enum at all? See below.
Just for the switch case readability.
I have to iterate across the multiphases array for look up name into 
device tree and evaluate in that order.

This can be reduced to:
	enum {
		MULTI_BUCK12,
		MULTI_BUCK123,
		MULTI_BUCK1234,
		MULTI_BUCK12_34,
		MULTI_NUM = MULTI_BUCK12_34 - MULTI_BUCK12 + 1
	};

> ...
>
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Switch case defines different possible multi phase config
> > +	 * This is based on dts buck node name.
> > +	 * Buck node name must be chosen accordingly.
> > +	 * Default case is no Multiphase buck.
> > +	 * In case of Multiphase configuration, value should be defined for
> > +	 * buck_configured to avoid creating bucks for every buck in multiphase
> > +	 */
> > +	for (multi = MULTI_FIRST; multi < MULTI_NUM; multi++) {
> > +		np = of_find_node_by_name(tps->dev->of_node, multiphases[multi]);
> > +		npname = of_node_full_name(np);
> > +		np_pmic_parent = of_get_parent(of_get_parent(np));
> > +		if (of_node_cmp(of_node_full_name(np_pmic_parent), tps->dev->of_node->full_name))
>
> Why not of_node_full_name() in the second case?
Sure.
> > +			continue;
> > +		delta = strcmp(npname, multiphases[multi]);
> > +		if (!delta) {
> > +			switch (multi) {
> > +			case MULTI_BUCK12:
>
> This all looks like match_string() reinvention.
I can go with match_string but this is not significantly changing the game:

index = match_string(multiphases, ARRAY_SIZE(multiphases), npname);
if (index >= 0) {
	switch (index) {

No question on all your other feedback. Just wondering if I missed 
something with match_string use. Looks like a good idea indeed but this 
is not drastically changing the code as you seem to expect... Let me 
know if you think I'm doing it in a wrong way.

Regards,
Jerome.