Re: [PATCH-v3 1/3] mfd: 88pm800: Add device tree support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>]

On 25.06.2015 14:27, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday 25 June 2015 05:27 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 2015-06-24 18:21 GMT+09:00 Vaibhav Hiremath
>> <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>:
>>> Add DT support to the 88pm800 driver, along with compatible
>>> field for it's sub-devices (rtc, onkey and regulator)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Xie <chao.xie@marvell.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/mfd/88pm800.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/88pm800.c b/drivers/mfd/88pm800.c
>>> index 841717a..059f01a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/88pm800.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/88pm800.c
>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>>   #include <linux/mfd/core.h>
>>>   #include <linux/mfd/88pm80x.h>
>>>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>>
>>>   /* Interrupt Registers */
>>>   #define PM800_INT_STATUS1              (0x05)
>>> @@ -121,6 +122,11 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id
>>> pm80x_id_table[] = {
>>>   };
>>>   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, pm80x_id_table);
>>>
>>> +static const struct of_device_id pm80x_of_match_table[] = {
>>> +       { .compatible = "marvell,88pm800", },
>>> +       {},
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>   static struct resource rtc_resources[] = {
>>>          {
>>>           .name = "88pm80x-rtc",
>>> @@ -133,6 +139,7 @@ static struct resource rtc_resources[] = {
>>>   static struct mfd_cell rtc_devs[] = {
>>>          {
>>>           .name = "88pm80x-rtc",
>>> +        .of_compatible = "marvell,88pm80x-rtc",
>>>           .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(rtc_resources),
>>>           .resources = &rtc_resources[0],
>>>           .id = -1,
>>> @@ -151,6 +158,7 @@ static struct resource onkey_resources[] = {
>>>   static const struct mfd_cell onkey_devs[] = {
>>>          {
>>>           .name = "88pm80x-onkey",
>>> +        .of_compatible = "marvell,88pm80x-onkey",
>>>           .num_resources = 1,
>>>           .resources = &onkey_resources[0],
>>>           .id = -1,
>>> @@ -160,6 +168,7 @@ static const struct mfd_cell onkey_devs[] = {
>>>   static const struct mfd_cell regulator_devs[] = {
>>>          {
>>>           .name = "88pm80x-regulator",
>>> +        .of_compatible = "marvell,88pm80x-regulator",
>>>           .id = -1,
>>>          },
>>>   };
>>> @@ -544,8 +553,23 @@ static int pm800_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>>          int ret = 0;
>>>          struct pm80x_chip *chip;
>>>          struct pm80x_platform_data *pdata =
>>> dev_get_platdata(&client->dev);
>>> +       struct device_node *np = client->dev.of_node;
>>>          struct pm80x_subchip *subchip;
>>>
>>> +       if (!pdata && !np) {
>>> +               dev_err(&client->dev,
>>> +                       "pm80x requires platform data or of_node\n");
>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       if (!pdata) {
>>> +               pdata = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*pdata),
>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +               if (!pdata) {
>>> +                       dev_err(&client->dev, "failed to allocaate
>>> memory\n");
>>
>> Generic error message for ENOMEM is not needed. Just return ENOMEM and
>> the core code will print the error.
>>
>> Rest looks fine,
> 
> 
> Ok, will remove it.
> 
> Should I add your reviewed-by in V4 for this patch?

No, not yet. :)
I would put such tag in my reply if I had that intention.

Best regards,
Krzysztof