Message ID | 20211120155707.4019487-1-luca@lucaceresoli.net |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add MAX77714 PMIC minimal driver (RTC and watchdog only) | expand |
On 20/11/2021 16:57, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > Add a simple driver for the Maxim MAX77714 PMIC, supporting RTC and > watchdog only. > > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net> > > --- > > Changes in v4: none > > Changes in v3: > - Suggested by Lee Jones: > - move struct mfd_cell to top of file > - remove struct max77714 and its kmalloc, not used after probe > - reword error messages > - add "/* pF */" onto the end of the load_cap line > > Changes in v2: > - fix "watchdog" word in heading comment (Guenter Roeck) > - move struct max77714 to .c file (Krzysztof Kozlowski) > - change include guard format (Krzysztof Kozlowski) > - allow building as a module (Krzysztof Kozlowski) > - remove of_match_ptr usage (Krzysztof Kozlowski / lkp) > (Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>) > --- > MAINTAINERS | 2 + > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 14 ++++ > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/mfd/max77714.c | 152 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/mfd/max77714.h | 60 ++++++++++++++ > 5 files changed, 229 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/max77714.c > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/max77714.h > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Guenter, On 29/11/21 17:04, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 04:57:06PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >> Clarify why we need to ping the watchdog before changing the timeout by >> quoting the MAX77714 datasheet. >> > > Unless I am missing something, this adds confusion instead of clarifying > anything, and it is misleading. The added comment in the code makes it > sound like clearing the watchdog timer is only needed for MAX77614. > However, the code was in place for MAX77620, suggesting that it was needed > for that chip as well and is not MAX77614 specific. You're right, the comment comes from the max77714-only driver, but now that it is in a multi-chip driver the confusion started to exist. > Please either drop this patch or rephrase it to clarify that it applies > to both chips. What if I rephrase to: /* * "If the value of TWD needs to be changed, clear the system * watchdog timer first [...], then change the value of TWD." - * (MAX77714 datasheet) + * (MAX77714 datasheet but applies to MAX77620 too) */ ?
On 11/29/21 8:08 AM, Luca Ceresoli wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On 29/11/21 17:04, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 04:57:06PM +0100, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >>> Clarify why we need to ping the watchdog before changing the timeout by >>> quoting the MAX77714 datasheet. >>> >> >> Unless I am missing something, this adds confusion instead of clarifying >> anything, and it is misleading. The added comment in the code makes it >> sound like clearing the watchdog timer is only needed for MAX77614. >> However, the code was in place for MAX77620, suggesting that it was needed >> for that chip as well and is not MAX77614 specific. > > You're right, the comment comes from the max77714-only driver, but now > that it is in a multi-chip driver the confusion started to exist. > >> Please either drop this patch or rephrase it to clarify that it applies >> to both chips. > > What if I rephrase to: > > /* > * "If the value of TWD needs to be changed, clear the system > * watchdog timer first [...], then change the value of TWD." > - * (MAX77714 datasheet) > + * (MAX77714 datasheet but applies to MAX77620 too) > */ > Sounds good. Guenter