[RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[Oleksandr Kozaruk]

From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>

The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in line with
an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.

Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code. 

Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kozaruk <oleksandr.kozaruk@ti.com>
---

There are non-mainline branches that use twl6032 by its name (for example
git://git.omapzoom.org/kernel/omap.git). There is intention to add support
of twl6032 device in mainline, but we'd like to know if we can use twl6032
instead of twl6025 in our new patches, that we are going to provide.

 drivers/mfd/twl-core.c            |   46 +++++++++++-----------
 drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c |   76 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 drivers/usb/phy/phy-twl6030-usb.c |    2 +-
 include/linux/i2c/twl.h           |   30 +++++++--------
 4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c b/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
index 89ab4d9..f39bceb 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@
 #define TWL6030_BASEADD_GASGAUGE	0x00C0
 #define TWL6030_BASEADD_PIH		0x00D0
 #define TWL6030_BASEADD_CHARGER		0x00E0
-#define TWL6025_BASEADD_CHARGER		0x00DA
+#define TWL6032_BASEADD_CHARGER		0x00DA
 #define TWL6030_BASEADD_LED		0x00F4
 
 /* subchip/slave 2 0x4A - DFT */
@@ -718,9 +718,9 @@ add_children(struct twl4030_platform_data *pdata, unsigned irq_base,
 					| REGULATOR_CHANGE_STATUS,
 			};
 
-			if (features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS) {
+			if (features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS) {
 				usb3v3.supply =	"ldousb";
-				regulator = TWL6025_REG_LDOUSB;
+				regulator = TWL6032_REG_LDOUSB;
 			} else {
 				usb3v3.supply = "vusb";
 				regulator = TWL6030_REG_VUSB;
@@ -747,8 +747,8 @@ add_children(struct twl4030_platform_data *pdata, unsigned irq_base,
 			usb3v3.dev_name = dev_name(child);
 	} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REGULATOR_TWL4030) &&
 		   twl_class_is_6030()) {
-		if (features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS)
-			child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDOUSB,
+		if (features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS)
+			child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDOUSB,
 						pdata->ldousb, features);
 		else
 			child = add_regulator(TWL6030_REG_VUSB,
@@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ add_children(struct twl4030_platform_data *pdata, unsigned irq_base,
 
 	/* twl6030 regulators */
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REGULATOR_TWL4030) && twl_class_is_6030() &&
-			!(features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS)) {
+			!(features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS)) {
 		child = add_regulator(TWL6030_REG_VDD1, pdata->vdd1,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
@@ -952,60 +952,60 @@ add_children(struct twl4030_platform_data *pdata, unsigned irq_base,
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 	}
 
-	/* twl6025 regulators */
+	/* twl6032 regulators */
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_REGULATOR_TWL4030) && twl_class_is_6030() &&
-			(features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS)) {
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDO5, pdata->ldo5,
+			(features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS)) {
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDO5, pdata->ldo5,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDO1, pdata->ldo1,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDO1, pdata->ldo1,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDO7, pdata->ldo7,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDO7, pdata->ldo7,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDO6, pdata->ldo6,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDO6, pdata->ldo6,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDOLN, pdata->ldoln,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDOLN, pdata->ldoln,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDO2, pdata->ldo2,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDO2, pdata->ldo2,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDO4, pdata->ldo4,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDO4, pdata->ldo4,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_LDO3, pdata->ldo3,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_LDO3, pdata->ldo3,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_SMPS3, pdata->smps3,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_SMPS3, pdata->smps3,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_SMPS4, pdata->smps4,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_SMPS4, pdata->smps4,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
 
-		child = add_regulator(TWL6025_REG_VIO, pdata->vio6025,
+		child = add_regulator(TWL6032_REG_VIO, pdata->vio6025,
 					features);
 		if (IS_ERR(child))
 			return PTR_ERR(child);
@@ -1176,10 +1176,10 @@ twl_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
 	if ((id->driver_data) & TWL6030_CLASS) {
 		twl_priv->twl_id = TWL6030_CLASS_ID;
 		twl_priv->twl_map = &twl6030_map[0];
-		/* The charger base address is different in twl6025 */
-		if ((id->driver_data) & TWL6025_SUBCLASS)
+		/* The charger base address is different in twl6032 */
+		if ((id->driver_data) & TWL6032_SUBCLASS)
 			twl_priv->twl_map[TWL_MODULE_MAIN_CHARGE].base =
-							TWL6025_BASEADD_CHARGER;
+							TWL6032_BASEADD_CHARGER;
 		twl_regmap_config = twl6030_regmap_config;
 	} else {
 		twl_priv->twl_id = TWL4030_CLASS_ID;
@@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@ static const struct i2c_device_id twl_ids[] = {
 	{ "tps65921", TPS_SUBSET },	/* fewer LDOs; no codec, no LED
 					   and vibrator. Charger in USB module*/
 	{ "twl6030", TWL6030_CLASS },	/* "Phoenix power chip" */
-	{ "twl6025", TWL6030_CLASS | TWL6025_SUBCLASS }, /* "Phoenix lite" */
+	{ "twl6032", TWL6030_CLASS | TWL6032_SUBCLASS }, /* "Phoenix lite" */
 	{ /* end of list */ },
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, twl_ids);
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c
index fb6e67d..93bc4f4 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ struct twlreg_info {
 #define SMPS_OFFSET_EN		BIT(0)
 #define SMPS_EXTENDED_EN	BIT(1)
 
-/* twl6025 SMPS EPROM values */
+/* twl6032 SMPS EPROM values */
 #define TWL6030_SMPS_OFFSET		0xB0
 #define TWL6030_SMPS_MULT		0xB3
 #define SMPS_MULTOFFSET_SMPS4	BIT(0)
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ static int twl6030reg_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 	struct twlreg_info	*info = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
 	int			grp = 0, val;
 
-	if (!(twl_class_is_6030() && (info->features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS))) {
+	if (!(twl_class_is_6030() && (info->features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS))) {
 		grp = twlreg_grp(rdev);
 		if (grp < 0)
 			return grp;
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static int twl6030reg_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 	int			grp = 0;
 	int			ret;
 
-	if (!(twl_class_is_6030() && (info->features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS)))
+	if (!(twl_class_is_6030() && (info->features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS)))
 		grp = twlreg_grp(rdev);
 	if (grp < 0)
 		return grp;
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static int twl6030reg_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 	int			grp = 0;
 	int			ret;
 
-	if (!(twl_class_is_6030() && (info->features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS)))
+	if (!(twl_class_is_6030() && (info->features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS)))
 		grp = P1_GRP_6030 | P2_GRP_6030 | P3_GRP_6030;
 
 	/* For 6030, set the off state for all grps enabled */
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ static int twl6030reg_set_mode(struct regulator_dev *rdev, unsigned mode)
 	int grp = 0;
 	int val;
 
-	if (!(twl_class_is_6030() && (info->features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS)))
+	if (!(twl_class_is_6030() && (info->features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS)))
 		grp = twlreg_grp(rdev);
 
 	if (grp < 0)
@@ -899,14 +899,14 @@ static const struct twlreg_info TWL6030_INFO_##label = { \
 		}, \
 	}
 
-#define TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(label, offset, min_mVolts, max_mVolts) \
-static const struct twlreg_info TWL6025_INFO_##label = { \
+#define TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(label, offset, min_mVolts, max_mVolts) \
+static const struct twlreg_info TWL6032_INFO_##label = { \
 	.base = offset, \
 	.min_mV = min_mVolts, \
 	.max_mV = max_mVolts, \
 	.desc = { \
 		.name = #label, \
-		.id = TWL6025_REG_##label, \
+		.id = TWL6032_REG_##label, \
 		.n_voltages = 32, \
 		.ops = &twl6030ldo_ops, \
 		.type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE, \
@@ -933,14 +933,14 @@ static const struct twlreg_info TWLFIXED_INFO_##label = { \
 		}, \
 	}
 
-#define TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_SMPS(label, offset) \
+#define TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_SMPS(label, offset) \
 static const struct twlreg_info TWLSMPS_INFO_##label = { \
 	.base = offset, \
 	.min_mV = 600, \
 	.max_mV = 2100, \
 	.desc = { \
 		.name = #label, \
-		.id = TWL6025_REG_##label, \
+		.id = TWL6032_REG_##label, \
 		.n_voltages = 63, \
 		.ops = &twlsmps_ops, \
 		.type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE, \
@@ -981,15 +981,15 @@ TWL6030_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(VMMC, 0x68, 1000, 3300);
 TWL6030_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(VPP, 0x6c, 1000, 3300);
 TWL6030_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(VUSIM, 0x74, 1000, 3300);
 /* 6025 are renamed compared to 6030 versions */
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO2, 0x54, 1000, 3300);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO4, 0x58, 1000, 3300);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO3, 0x5c, 1000, 3300);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO5, 0x68, 1000, 3300);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO1, 0x6c, 1000, 3300);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO7, 0x74, 1000, 3300);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO6, 0x60, 1000, 3300);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDOLN, 0x64, 1000, 3300);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDOUSB, 0x70, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO2, 0x54, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO4, 0x58, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO3, 0x5c, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO5, 0x68, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO1, 0x6c, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO7, 0x74, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDO6, 0x60, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDOLN, 0x64, 1000, 3300);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_LDO(LDOUSB, 0x70, 1000, 3300);
 TWL4030_FIXED_LDO(VINTANA1, 0x3f, 1500, 11, 100, 0x08);
 TWL4030_FIXED_LDO(VINTDIG, 0x47, 1500, 13, 100, 0x08);
 TWL4030_FIXED_LDO(VUSB1V5, 0x71, 1500, 17, 100, 0x08);
@@ -1001,9 +1001,9 @@ TWL6030_FIXED_LDO(VDAC, 0x64, 1800, 0);
 TWL6030_FIXED_LDO(VUSB, 0x70, 3300, 0);
 TWL6030_FIXED_LDO(V1V8, 0x16, 1800, 0);
 TWL6030_FIXED_LDO(V2V1, 0x1c, 2100, 0);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_SMPS(SMPS3, 0x34);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_SMPS(SMPS4, 0x10);
-TWL6025_ADJUSTABLE_SMPS(VIO, 0x16);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_SMPS(SMPS3, 0x34);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_SMPS(SMPS4, 0x10);
+TWL6032_ADJUSTABLE_SMPS(VIO, 0x16);
 
 static u8 twl_get_smps_offset(void)
 {
@@ -1031,7 +1031,7 @@ static u8 twl_get_smps_mult(void)
 
 #define TWL4030_OF_MATCH(comp, label) TWL_OF_MATCH(comp, TWL4030, label)
 #define TWL6030_OF_MATCH(comp, label) TWL_OF_MATCH(comp, TWL6030, label)
-#define TWL6025_OF_MATCH(comp, label) TWL_OF_MATCH(comp, TWL6025, label)
+#define TWL6032_OF_MATCH(comp, label) TWL_OF_MATCH(comp, TWL6032, label)
 #define TWLFIXED_OF_MATCH(comp, label) TWL_OF_MATCH(comp, TWLFIXED, label)
 #define TWLSMPS_OF_MATCH(comp, label) TWL_OF_MATCH(comp, TWLSMPS, label)
 
@@ -1060,15 +1060,15 @@ static const struct of_device_id twl_of_match[] = {
 	TWL6030_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6030-vmmc", VMMC),
 	TWL6030_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6030-vpp", VPP),
 	TWL6030_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6030-vusim", VUSIM),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldo2", LDO2),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldo4", LDO4),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldo3", LDO3),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldo5", LDO5),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldo1", LDO1),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldo7", LDO7),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldo6", LDO6),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldoln", LDOLN),
-	TWL6025_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-ldousb", LDOUSB),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldo2", LDO2),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldo4", LDO4),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldo3", LDO3),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldo5", LDO5),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldo1", LDO1),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldo7", LDO7),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldo6", LDO6),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldoln", LDOLN),
+	TWL6032_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-ldousb", LDOUSB),
 	TWLFIXED_OF_MATCH("ti,twl4030-vintana1", VINTANA1),
 	TWLFIXED_OF_MATCH("ti,twl4030-vintdig", VINTDIG),
 	TWLFIXED_OF_MATCH("ti,twl4030-vusb1v5", VUSB1V5),
@@ -1080,9 +1080,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id twl_of_match[] = {
 	TWLFIXED_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6030-vusb", VUSB),
 	TWLFIXED_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6030-v1v8", V1V8),
 	TWLFIXED_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6030-v2v1", V2V1),
-	TWLSMPS_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-smps3", SMPS3),
-	TWLSMPS_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-smps4", SMPS4),
-	TWLSMPS_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6025-vio", VIO),
+	TWLSMPS_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-smps3", SMPS3),
+	TWLSMPS_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-smps4", SMPS4),
+	TWLSMPS_OF_MATCH("ti,twl6032-vio", VIO),
 	{},
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, twl_of_match);
@@ -1163,19 +1163,19 @@ static int twlreg_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	}
 
 	switch (id) {
-	case TWL6025_REG_SMPS3:
+	case TWL6032_REG_SMPS3:
 		if (twl_get_smps_mult() & SMPS_MULTOFFSET_SMPS3)
 			info->flags |= SMPS_EXTENDED_EN;
 		if (twl_get_smps_offset() & SMPS_MULTOFFSET_SMPS3)
 			info->flags |= SMPS_OFFSET_EN;
 		break;
-	case TWL6025_REG_SMPS4:
+	case TWL6032_REG_SMPS4:
 		if (twl_get_smps_mult() & SMPS_MULTOFFSET_SMPS4)
 			info->flags |= SMPS_EXTENDED_EN;
 		if (twl_get_smps_offset() & SMPS_MULTOFFSET_SMPS4)
 			info->flags |= SMPS_OFFSET_EN;
 		break;
-	case TWL6025_REG_VIO:
+	case TWL6032_REG_VIO:
 		if (twl_get_smps_mult() & SMPS_MULTOFFSET_VIO)
 			info->flags |= SMPS_EXTENDED_EN;
 		if (twl_get_smps_offset() & SMPS_MULTOFFSET_VIO)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-twl6030-usb.c b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-twl6030-usb.c
index 9de7ada..1753bd3 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/phy/phy-twl6030-usb.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/phy/phy-twl6030-usb.c
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ static int twl6030_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (np) {
 		twl->regulator = "usb";
 	} else if (pdata) {
-		if (pdata->features & TWL6025_SUBCLASS)
+		if (pdata->features & TWL6032_SUBCLASS)
 			twl->regulator = "ldousb";
 		else
 			twl->regulator = "vusb";
diff --git a/include/linux/i2c/twl.h b/include/linux/i2c/twl.h
index 488debb..9087fec 100644
--- a/include/linux/i2c/twl.h
+++ b/include/linux/i2c/twl.h
@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ struct twl4030_platform_data {
 	struct regulator_init_data		*clk32kg;
 	struct regulator_init_data              *v1v8;
 	struct regulator_init_data              *v2v1;
-	/* TWL6025 LDO regulators */
+	/* TWL6032 LDO regulators */
 	struct regulator_init_data		*ldo1;
 	struct regulator_init_data		*ldo2;
 	struct regulator_init_data		*ldo3;
@@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ struct twl4030_platform_data {
 	struct regulator_init_data		*ldo7;
 	struct regulator_init_data		*ldoln;
 	struct regulator_init_data		*ldousb;
-	/* TWL6025 DCDC regulators */
+	/* TWL6032 DCDC regulators */
 	struct regulator_init_data		*smps3;
 	struct regulator_init_data		*smps4;
 	struct regulator_init_data		*vio6025;
@@ -753,7 +753,7 @@ struct twl_regulator_driver_data {
 #define TPS_SUBSET		BIT(1)	/* tps659[23]0 have fewer LDOs */
 #define TWL5031			BIT(2)  /* twl5031 has different registers */
 #define TWL6030_CLASS		BIT(3)	/* TWL6030 class */
-#define TWL6025_SUBCLASS	BIT(4)  /* TWL6025 has changed registers */
+#define TWL6032_SUBCLASS	BIT(4)  /* TWL6032 has changed registers */
 #define TWL4030_ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED BIT(5) /* Some voltages are possible
 					  * but not officially supported.
 					  * This flag is necessary to
@@ -840,20 +840,20 @@ static inline int twl4030charger_usb_en(int enable) { return 0; }
 #define TWL6030_REG_CLK32KG	48
 
 /* LDOs on 6025 have different names */
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDO2	49
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDO4	50
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDO3	51
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDO5	52
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDO1	53
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDO7	54
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDO6	55
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDOLN	56
-#define TWL6025_REG_LDOUSB	57
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDO2	49
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDO4	50
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDO3	51
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDO5	52
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDO1	53
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDO7	54
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDO6	55
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDOLN	56
+#define TWL6032_REG_LDOUSB	57
 
 /* 6025 DCDC supplies */
-#define TWL6025_REG_SMPS3	58
-#define TWL6025_REG_SMPS4	59
-#define TWL6025_REG_VIO		60
+#define TWL6032_REG_SMPS3	58
+#define TWL6032_REG_SMPS4	59
+#define TWL6032_REG_VIO		60
 
 
 #endif /* End of __TWL4030_H */
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:53:10PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
> From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
> 
> The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
> the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
> reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in line with
> an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
> 
> Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code. 

Given that the chip exists even if not widely distributed it seems as
well to keep the twl6025 references in there at least in the device ID
table - it won't do any harm to people using the twl6032 name and might
help someone who happens to pick up an old board for whatever reason.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[gg]

On 2013-06-07 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:53:10PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
>> From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
>> 
>> The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
>> the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
>> reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in line 
>> with
>> an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
>> 
>> Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code.
> 
> Given that the chip exists even if not widely distributed it seems as
> well to keep the twl6025 references in there at least in the device ID
> table - it won't do any harm to people using the twl6032 name and might
> help someone who happens to pick up an old board for whatever reason.

I do not think any "old boards" exist, it really was a limited run!

Graeme

Re: [RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[Oleksandr Kozaruk]

On 06/07/2013 05:44 PM, gg@slimlogic.co.uk wrote:
> On 2013-06-07 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:53:10PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
>>> From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
>>>
>>> The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
>>> the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
>>> reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in 
>>> line with
>>> an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code.
>>
>> Given that the chip exists even if not widely distributed it seems as
>> well to keep the twl6025 references in there at least in the device ID
>> table - it won't do any harm to people using the twl6032 name and might
>> help someone who happens to pick up an old board for whatever reason.
>
> I do not think any "old boards" exist, it really was a limited run!
>
> Graeme
>
Hello Mark, Graeme

So, what is your opinion? Could we move forward with this?

In addition, If twl6032 will be added on top of twl6025 there will be no 
guarantee
that twl6025 will work because:
- there is no HW to verify
- there is no documentation on twl6025 available, so, in case if current 
implementation is
   different from what is needed for twl6032 - it can't be handled properly

Re: [RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[Oleksandr Kozaruk]

On 06/07/2013 05:44 PM, gg@slimlogic.co.uk wrote:
> On 2013-06-07 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:53:10PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
>>> From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
>>>
>>> The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
>>> the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
>>> reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in 
>>> line with
>>> an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code.
>>
>> Given that the chip exists even if not widely distributed it seems as
>> well to keep the twl6025 references in there at least in the device ID
>> table - it won't do any harm to people using the twl6032 name and might
>> help someone who happens to pick up an old board for whatever reason.
>
> I do not think any "old boards" exist, it really was a limited run!
>
> Graeme
>
Hello Mark, Graeme,

Taking in account that:
- there is no hardware to test twl6025, testing is not possible;
- there is no documentation for twl6025, and if there are any changes to 
twl6032 is not known;
- twl6032 is available, and in production, twl6025 is not even found on 
ti.com <http://ti.com>

So, what do you think, can this change be accepted?

// I apologize for sending personal e-mails, not to the mail list

Re: [RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[Graeme Gregory]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 01:21:01PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
> On 06/07/2013 05:44 PM, gg@slimlogic.co.uk wrote:
> >On 2013-06-07 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:53:10PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
> >>>From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
> >>>
> >>>The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
> >>>the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
> >>>reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032
> >>>in line with
> >>>an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
> >>>
> >>>Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code.
> >>
> >>Given that the chip exists even if not widely distributed it seems as
> >>well to keep the twl6025 references in there at least in the device ID
> >>table - it won't do any harm to people using the twl6032 name and might
> >>help someone who happens to pick up an old board for whatever reason.
> >
> >I do not think any "old boards" exist, it really was a limited run!
> >
> >Graeme
> >
> Hello Mark, Graeme,
> 
> Taking in account that:
> - there is no hardware to test twl6025, testing is not possible;
> - there is no documentation for twl6025, and if there are any
> changes to twl6032 is not known;
> - twl6032 is available, and in production, twl6025 is not even found
> on ti.com <http://ti.com>
> 
> So, what do you think, can this change be accepted?
> 
> // I apologize for sending personal e-mails, not to the mail list

I have never seen a twl6025 board, it only ever existed AFAIK in lab samples
which were used on a generic carrier board. twl6032 was the actual production
device.

Graeme

Re: [RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[Oleksandr Kozaruk]

On 06/07/2013 05:44 PM, gg@slimlogic.co.uk wrote:
> On 2013-06-07 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:53:10PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
>>> From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
>>>
>>> The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
>>> the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
>>> reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in 
>>> line with
>>> an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code.
>>
>> Given that the chip exists even if not widely distributed it seems as
>> well to keep the twl6025 references in there at least in the device ID
>> table - it won't do any harm to people using the twl6032 name and might
>> help someone who happens to pick up an old board for whatever reason.
>
> I do not think any "old boards" exist, it really was a limited run!
>
> Graeme
>
Hello Mark, Graeme,

Taking in account that:
- there is no hardware to test twl6025, testing is not possible;
- there is no documentation for twl6025, and if there are any changes to 
twl6032 is not known;
- twl6032 is available, and in production, twl6025 is not even found on 
ti.com 
<https://emea.mail.ti.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=Lmz99OgekUScv9U89hUFHXTz_mebO9AIdxDOPBzqDKKuqB_Dr5dpU_Sl2criZoxOeMxW4IqmDOA.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fti.com>

So, what do you think, can this change be accepted?

// I apologize for sending previous email as personal, not to mail list.

Re: [RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[Oleksandr Kozaruk]

On 06/13/2013 11:17 AM, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM, <gg@slimlogic.co.uk 
> <mailto:gg@slimlogic.co.uk>> wrote:
> >
> > On 2013-06-07 15:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 01:53:10PM +0300, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk <mailto:gg@slimlogic.co.uk>>
> >>>
> >>> The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
> >>> the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
> >>> reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in 
> line with
> >>> an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
> >>>
> >>> Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code.
> >>
> >>
> >> Given that the chip exists even if not widely distributed it seems as
> >> well to keep the twl6025 references in there at least in the device ID
> >> table - it won't do any harm to people using the twl6032 name and might
> >> help someone who happens to pick up an old board for whatever reason.
> >
> >
> > I do not think any "old boards" exist, it really was a limited run!
> >
> > Graeme
>
> Hello Mark, Graeme,
>
> Taking in account that:
> - there is no hardware to test twl6025, testing is not possible;
> - there is no documentation for twl6025, and if there are any changes 
> to twl6032 is not known;
> - twl6032 is available, and in production, twl6025 is not even found 
> on ti.com <http://ti.com>
>
> So, what do you think, can this change be accepted?
> <http://www.globallogic.com/email_disclaimer.txt>
Sorry for spamming - had problems with mail server.

Re: [RFC v1] MFD: Change TWL6025 references to TWL6032

[Lee Jones]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013, Oleksandr Kozaruk wrote:

> From: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
> 
> The TWL6025 was never released beyond sample form and was replaced by
> the PhoenixLite range of chips - TWL6032. Change the references to
> reference the TWL6032 class and name the registers to twl6032 in line with
> an actual released chip name to avoid confusion.
> 
> Currently there is no users of TWL6025 in the code. 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <gg@slimlogic.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kozaruk <oleksandr.kozaruk@ti.com>
> ---
> 
> There are non-mainline branches that use twl6032 by its name (for example
> git://git.omapzoom.org/kernel/omap.git). There is intention to add support
> of twl6032 device in mainline, but we'd like to know if we can use twl6032
> instead of twl6025 in our new patches, that we are going to provide.
> 
>  drivers/mfd/twl-core.c            |   46 +++++++++++-----------
>  drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c |   76 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  drivers/usb/phy/phy-twl6030-usb.c |    2 +-
>  include/linux/i2c/twl.h           |   30 +++++++--------
>  4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)

If the TWL6025 truly didn't enter production then I'm okay with this
as long as Mark and the other maintainers are.

For the MFD parts:

Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog