Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024

From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>,
	<rtc-linux@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <robh+dt@kernel.org>, <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	<mark.rutland@arm.com>, <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	<galak@codeaurora.org>, <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	<gnurou@gmail.com>, <lee.jones@linaro.org>, <broonie@kernel.org>,
	<a.zummo@towertech.it>, <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
	<lgirdwood@gmail.com>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	<swarren@nvidia.com>, <treding@nvidia.com>,
	Chaitanya Bandi <bandik@nvidia.com>,
	Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:46:43 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <568F7E7B.1010501@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJKOXPfa0jjRWE6LKvNmwCRcG9Es7=36_03kTqCx-aB1wENx0g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Krzysztof,
Thanks for review.
I will fix most of your comment on my next patch.

Answering to some of comment/query.

On Friday 08 January 2016 07:05 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> ()2016-01-07 23:38 GMT+09:00 Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>:
> +                               dev_err(dev,
> +                                   "FPS enable-input %u is not supported\n",
> +                                       pval);
> Indentation of arguments does not seem equal here or maybe this is
> just my email client. Have you run this through checkpatch? And
> sparse? And coccicheck (that one definitely not because kbuild is
> complaining)?
I ran checkpatch before I sent.

> +               chip->rmap[i] = devm_regmap_init_i2c(chip->clients[i],
> +               (const struct regmap_config *)&max77620_regmap_config[i]);
> Indentation looks weird here (or again this is my email client...).
> The cast is even weirder?!? Why casting?
There is some parameter difference for MAX77620 and MAX20024. I have 
only one structure for it and changing tun time so I have not define 
this structure as constant.
Now API needs const type structure and hence casting it.

However, I have  define different structure for MAX77620 and MAX20024 
which are const type and hence no need to explicitly casting here. This 
will be in my next patch.

+static inline int max77620_reg_update(struct device *dev, int sid,
+               unsigned int reg, unsigned int mask, unsigned int val)
+{
+       struct max77620_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+       return regmap_update_bits(chip->rmap[sid], reg, mask, val);
+}

> I think all these shouldn't be static inlines in header. Although some
> of them are one-liners but rest are not. Let the compiler decide what
> to do with these wrappers.

If I dont make inline from header then this will complain as unused 
static function on related C compilation if it is not used on C. This 
header included from all sub module driver and they are not using all 
these APIs.

To avoid compilation warning,  I need to use inline here.