RE: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: da9063: Disallow RTC on DA9063L

[Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>]

Thanks Marek,

On 23 May 2018 12:42 Marek Vasut wrote,

> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>; Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>; Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: da9063: Disallow RTC on DA9063L
>
> The DA9063L does not contain RTC block, unlike the full DA9063.
> Do not allow binding RTC driver on this variant of the chip.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c index 7360b76b4f72..263c83006413 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-core.c
> @@ -101,14 +101,14 @@ static const struct mfd_cell da9063_devs[] = {
>  		.of_compatible = "dlg,da9063-onkey",
>  	},
>  	{
> +		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION,
> +	},
> +	{	/* Only present on DA9063 , not on DA9063L */
>  		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_RTC,
>  		.num_resources	= ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_rtc_resources),
>  		.resources	= da9063_rtc_resources,
>  		.of_compatible	= "dlg,da9063-rtc",
>  	},
> -	{
> -		.name		= DA9063_DRVNAME_VIBRATION,
> -	},
>  };
>  
>  static int da9063_clear_fault_log(struct da9063 *da9063) @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned int irq)  {
>  	struct da9063_pdata *pdata = da9063->dev->platform_data;
>  	int model, variant_id, variant_code;
> -	int ret;
> +	int da9063_devs_len, ret;
>  
>  	ret = da9063_clear_fault_log(da9063);
>  	if (ret < 0)
> @@ -225,9 +225,13 @@ int da9063_device_init(struct da9063 *da9063, unsigned int irq)
>  
>  	da9063->irq_base = regmap_irq_chip_get_base(da9063->regmap_irq);
>  
> -	ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs,
> -			      ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs), NULL, da9063->irq_base,
> -			      NULL);
> +	da9063_devs_len = ARRAY_SIZE(da9063_devs);
> +	/* RTC, the last device in the list, is only present on DA9063 */
> +	if (da9063->type == PMIC_TYPE_DA9063L)
> +		da9063_devs_len -= 1;
> +
> +	ret = mfd_add_devices(da9063->dev, -1, da9063_devs, da9063_devs_len,
> +			      NULL, da9063->irq_base, NULL);
>  	if (ret)
>  		dev_err(da9063->dev, "Cannot add MFD cells\n");
>  
> --
> 2.16.2

MFD cells definitely has less impact than regmap_range and regmap_irq.
I agree, there's no point in having a completely new 
static const struct mfd_cell da9063l_devs[] = { ... }  for DA9063L

Acked-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>

Regards,
Steve