Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] mfd: Support ROHM BD9576MUF and BD9573MUF

[Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>]

Hello Lee,

On Tue, 2021-02-09 at 14:55 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> 
> > Add core support for ROHM BD9576MUF and BD9573MUF PMICs which are
> > mainly used to power the R-Car series processors.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
> > ---
> > +
> > +static struct mfd_cell bd9573_mfd_cells[] = {
> > +	{ .name = "bd9573-pmic", },
> > +	{ .name = "bd9576-wdt", },
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct mfd_cell bd9576_mfd_cells[] = {
> > +	{ .name = "bd9576-pmic", },
> > +	{ .name = "bd9576-wdt", },
> > +};
> 
> What is a PMIC in this context?
> 
> To me a PMIC is a bunch of devices.  What is this probing?

I agree. PMIC is the IC as a whole. This name was not the best one. 
> 
> Maybe this is *-regulator?

That would be more descriptive and I can change this. However, it means
I need to change the already applied regulator part too. Furthermore,
all other ROHM PMIC drivers I've written use the <part-name>-pmic for
regulators and so does a few other drivers at least for ICs from Maxim,
Samsung and TI. That's why I don't think the <partname>-pmic is that
confusing. If it was my decision, I would stick with the pmic for the
sake of the consistency.

+
> > +	ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, mfd,
> > cells,
> 
> This nomenclature is confusing.
> 
> cells and num_cells would clear it up.

I can change it.
+
> > +#define BD957X_MAX_REGISTER 0x61
> 
> Nit: Can you tab these out for improved readability please?
Sure, no problem.

Thanks for the review!

Best Regards
	--Matti

--
Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland
SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU
FINLAND

~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished ~~~

Simon says - in Latin please.
"non cogito me" dixit Rene Descarte, deinde evanescavit

(Thanks for the translation Simon)