Thanks Lee for review.
I will take care of most of stuff on next version of patch.
However, I have some query form your comment.
On Friday 29 January 2016 02:36 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
+ }
+
+#define MAX20024_SUB_MODULE_NO_RES(_name, _id) \
+ [_id] = { \
+ .name = "max20024-"#_name, \
+ .id = _id, \
+ }
I don't want people hand-rolling this stuff. If it's useful to you,
it's useful to others, so great a generic implementation that lives in
the kernel headers directory.
yaah, generic implementation possible. I can put the new defines in the
mfd/core.h.
This will be similar to
+/* Define mfd cells with name and resource */
+#define DEFINE_MFD_CELL_NAME_RESOURCE(_name, _res) \
+ { \
+ .name = (_name), \
+ .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE((res)), \
+ .resources = (_res), \
+ }
+
+/* Define mfd cells with name */
+#define DEFINE_MFD_CELL_NAME(_name) \
+ { \
+ .name = (_name), \
+ }
+
This will be separate patch and should be applied before this series.
Does it look fine?
+static const struct i2c_device_id max77620_id[] = {
+ {"max77620", MAX77620},
+ {"max20024", MAX20024},
+ {},
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, max77620_id);
+
+static const struct of_device_id max77620_of_match[] = {
+ {
+ .compatible = "maxim,max77620",
+ .data = &max77620_cells,
+ }, {
+ .compatible = "maxim,max20024",
+ .data = &max20024_cells,
+ }, {
+ },
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77620_of_match);
This is not acceptable. EITHER use DT OR MFD methods of registering
devices, do not mix the two.
You mean I need to either provide the i2c_device_id table or the
of_device_id table, not both?
Do I need to protect it by CONFIG_OF?
This only support the DT method of registration. So do I need to remove
i2c_device_id?
