Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 3/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: add new SPMI vibrator support

From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
	<linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	<agross@kernel.org>, <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	<linux-input@vger.kernel.org>, <quic_collinsd@quicinc.com>,
	<quic_subbaram@quicinc.com>, <quic_kamalw@quicinc.com>,
	<jestar@qti.qualcomm.com>, Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 3/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: add new SPMI vibrator support
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:52:32 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <98c668b6-7595-2c0a-ebe5-2f729d29b618@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZRhKAWYBLcBZHc73@google.com>

On 2023/10/1 0:17, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:54:45AM +0800, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/24/2023 3:07 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +       switch (vib->data->hw_type) {
>>>> +       case SSBI_VIB:
>>>>                   mask = SSBI_VIB_DRV_LEVEL_MASK;
>>>>                   shift = SSBI_VIB_DRV_SHIFT;
>>>> +               break;
>>>> +       case SPMI_VIB:
>>>> +               mask = SPMI_VIB_DRV_LEVEL_MASK;
>>>> +               shift = SPMI_VIB_DRV_SHIFT;
>>>> +               break;
>>>> +       case SPMI_VIB_GEN2:
>>>> +               mask = SPMI_VIB_GEN2_DRV_MASK;
>>>> +               shift = SPMI_VIB_GEN2_DRV_SHIFT;
>>>> +               break;
>>>> +       default:
>>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>> Could you please move the switch to the previous patch? Then it would
>>> be more obvious that you are just adding the SPMI_VIB_GEN2 here.
>>>
>>> Other than that LGTM.
>>
>> Sure, I can move the switch to the previous refactoring patch.
> 
> Actually, the idea of having a const "reg" or "chip", etc. structure is
> to avoid this kind of runtime checks based on hardware type and instead
> use common computation. I believe you need to move mask and shift into
> the chip-specific structure and avoid defining hw_type.
> 
> Thanks.

Hi Dmitry,

The v7 changes have been pending for a while, I am not sure if you are 
still insist on this. As I explained, I actually did it this way in v2 
and it got updated to this by following other comments.

Can you respond and tell me if you prefer changes similar to v2? I can 
update and push v8 by following your suggestion.

v7: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20231108-pm8xxx-vibrator-v7-0-632c731d25a8@quicinc.com/

v2: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230718062639.2339589-3-quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com/

Thanks
> 