On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:31:06 +0000 Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > > The RC5T619 has a RTC which is missing in the > > RN5T618. Add it as subdevice to prepare for their implementation > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade > > --- > > Changes in v3: > > - alignment cleanup > > drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c > > index d78eb29b94a4..18d56a732b20 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c > > @@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ static const struct mfd_cell rn5t618_cells[] = { > > { .name = "rn5t618-wdt" }, > > }; > > > > +static const struct mfd_cell rc5t619_cells[] = { > > + { .name = "rn5t618-regulator" }, > > + { .name = "rc5t619-rtc" }, > > + { .name = "rn5t618-wdt" }, > > +}; > > + > > static bool rn5t618_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) > > { > > switch (reg) { > > @@ -173,8 +179,14 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, > > return ret; > > } > > > > - ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rn5t618_cells, > > - ARRAY_SIZE(rn5t618_cells), NULL, 0, NULL); > > + if (priv->variant == RC5T619) > > + ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, -1, rc5t619_cells, > > Ref: The "-1", please use this as an opportunity to use the defines. > > > + ARRAY_SIZE(rc5t619_cells), > > + NULL, 0, NULL); > > + else > > Are you sure it's not possible for 'variant' to be an unsupported > device? > Well, does it change the behavior for devices other than the rc5t619? I do not think so. If the mfd driver is bound to unsupported devices, rn5t618_of_match is wrong. Or do you want separate cell arrays for each of the three variant now to ease future extensions? Regards, Andreas