Hi Marek,

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:07:28AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:59:11PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Rather than hard-coding the quirk topology, which stopped scaling,
> > parse the information from DT. The code looks for all compatible
> > PMICs -- da9036 and da9210 -- and checks if their IRQ line is tied
> > to the same pin. If so, the code sends a matching sequence to the
> > PMIC to deassert the IRQ.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
> > Cc: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
> > Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>

From an I2C point of view:

Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>

Minor nits:

> > @@ -122,7 +143,13 @@ static struct notifier_block regulator_quirk_nb = {
> >  
> >  static int __init rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk(void)
> >  {
> > -	u32 mon;
> > +	struct device_node *np;
> > +	const struct of_device_id *id;
> > +	struct regulator_quirk *quirk;
> > +	struct regulator_quirk *pos;

Merge the last two lines into one?

> > +	struct of_phandle_args *argsa, *argsb;
> > +	u32 mon, addr;
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> >  	if (!of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,koelsch") &&
> >  	    !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,lager") &&
> > @@ -130,6 +157,45 @@ static int __init rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk(void)
> >  	    !of_machine_is_compatible("renesas,gose"))
> >  		return -ENODEV;
> >  
> > +	for_each_matching_node_and_match(np, rcar_gen2_quirk_match, &id) {
> > +		if (!np || !of_device_is_available(np))

Can '!np' actually happen? This is the exit condition of the for-loop,
or am I overlooking something?

Regards,

   Wolfram