Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: bd96801: Add ERRB IRQ

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

On 09/10/2024 19:11, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> 
>> The ROHM BD96801 "scalable PMIC" provides two physical IRQs. The ERRB
>> handling can in many cases be omitted because it is used to inform fatal
>> IRQs, which usually kill the power from the SOC.
>>
>> There may however be use-cases where the SOC has a 'back-up' emergency
>> power source which allows some very short time of operation to try to
>> gracefully shut down sensitive hardware. Furthermore, it is possible the
>> processor controlling the PMIC is not powered by the PMIC. In such cases
>> handling the ERRB IRQs may be beneficial.
>>
>> Add support for ERRB IRQs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Revision history:
>> New series (only ERRB addition)
>> v2:
>> 	- Suffle local variables in probe()
>> 	- Unify and improve the error prints when adding regmap IRQ chip for
>> 	  INTB or ERRB fails.
>> v1:
>> 	- use devm allocation for regulator_res
>> 	- use goto skip_errb instead of an if (errb)
>> 	- constify immutable structs
>>
>> Old series (All BD96801 functionality + irqdomain and regmap changes)
>> v2 => v3:
>> 	- No changes
>> v1 => v2:
>> 	- New patch
>> ---
>>   drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c | 275 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 241 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> 
> Are the 2 patches tied together or can they be taken separately?
> 

I tried compiling the commits individually, and there should be no 
compilation dependencies between them. The MFD commit introduces the 
IRQs the regulator commit is using - but the regulator code should not 
abort if getting the ERRB IRQs fails - assuming I read the code right. I 
don't have the BD96801 at my hands to test right now (I'm not in the 
office).

Also, the ERRB IRQ registration is only attempted if ERRB IRQs are given 
in device-tree. I don't think we have users who run the bleeding-edge 
upstream and I'd be _very_ surprized if there are users who run newest 
upstream (or subsystem trees) AND have added ERRBs to device-tree.

So, I'd say it should be safe to take em separately, but sure it'd be 
nice to have them landing in same release.

Yours,
	-- Matti