[PATCH] mfd: intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti: Remove invalid max_register from regmap-config

[PATCH] mfd: intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti: Remove invalid max_register from regmap-config

[Hans de Goede]

The max_register = 128 setting in the regmap config is not valid.

The Intel Dollar Cove TI PMIC has an eeprom unlock register at address 0x88
and a number of EEPROM registers at 0xF?. Drop the invalid max_register
setting so that these registers can be accessed.

Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c b/drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c
index 992855bfda3e..686b84e33671 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c
@@ -81,7 +81,6 @@ static struct mfd_cell chtdc_ti_dev[] = {
 static const struct regmap_config chtdc_ti_regmap_config = {
 	.reg_bits = 8,
 	.val_bits = 8,
-	.max_register = 128,
 	.cache_type = REGCACHE_NONE,
 };
 
-- 
2.47.0

Re: [PATCH] mfd: intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti: Remove invalid max_register from regmap-config

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:02:09PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> The max_register = 128 setting in the regmap config is not valid.
> 
> The Intel Dollar Cove TI PMIC has an eeprom unlock register at address 0x88
> and a number of EEPROM registers at 0xF?. Drop the invalid max_register
> setting so that these registers can be accessed.

Wouldn't this break debugfs facility?
If that is the case, perhaps adding 0xff to it would make more sense?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] mfd: intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti: Remove invalid max_register from regmap-config

[Hans de Goede]

Hi Andy,

On 5-Dec-24 9:19 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:02:09PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> The max_register = 128 setting in the regmap config is not valid.
>>
>> The Intel Dollar Cove TI PMIC has an eeprom unlock register at address 0x88
>> and a number of EEPROM registers at 0xF?. Drop the invalid max_register
>> setting so that these registers can be accessed.
> 
> Wouldn't this break debugfs facility?
> If that is the case, perhaps adding 0xff to it would make more sense?

Ah you are right, I assumed not setting it would just make the regmap
code interpret things as being no maximum. But this does need to be set
for the debugfs regmap dumping to work. I did not realize that.

I'll post a v2 setting it to 0xff instead.

Regards,

Hans