Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: refactor to support new SPMI vibrator

[Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>]

On 4/2/2024 11:21 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 1.04.2024 10:38 AM, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay wrote:
>> From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
>>
>> Currently, vibrator control register addresses are hard coded,
>> including the base address and offsets, it's not flexible to
>> support new SPMI vibrator module which is usually included in
>> different PMICs with different base address. Refactor it by using
>> the base address defined in devicetree.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
>> ---
> 
> [...]
> 
>>   	if (regs->enable_mask)
>> -		rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, regs->enable_addr,
>> +		rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, vib->enable_addr,
>>   					regs->enable_mask, on ? ~0 : 0);
> 
> The idiomatic way across the kernel seems to be writing the mask value
> instead of ~0 (which also saves like 2 cpu instructions)
> 
> 
> Not sure about how ssbi addressing works, but except for that lgtm
> 
Agree.
SSBI driver doesn't provide reg_update_bits function call so similar 
mathematics is done on the value before writing to the register,  I can 
update it to use enable_mask directly in next version.

> Konrad