On 24.05.2016 12:04, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
+static int ad5820_registered(struct v4l2_subdev *subdev)
+{
+ struct ad5820_device *coil = to_ad5820_device(subdev);
+ struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(subdev);
+
+ coil->vana = regulator_get(&client->dev, "VANA");
devm_regulator_get()?
I'd rather avoid devm_ here. Driver is simple enough to allow it.
Now thinking about it, what would happen here if regulator_get() returns
-EPROBE_DEFER? Wouldn't it be better to move regulator_get to the
probe() function, something like:
static int ad5820_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
const struct i2c_device_id *devid)
{
struct ad5820_device *coil;
int ret = 0;
coil = devm_kzalloc(sizeof(*coil), GFP_KERNEL);
if (coil == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
coil->vana = devm_regulator_get(&client->dev, NULL);
if (IS_ERR(coil->vana)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(coil->vana);
if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
dev_err(&client->dev, "could not get regulator for
vana\n");
return ret;
}
mutex_init(&coil->power_lock);
...
with the appropriate changes to remove() because of the devm API usage.
+#define AD5820_RAMP_MODE_LINEAR (0 << 3)
+#define AD5820_RAMP_MODE_64_16 (1 << 3)
+
+struct ad5820_platform_data {
+ int (*set_xshutdown)(struct v4l2_subdev *subdev, int set);
+};
+
+#define to_ad5820_device(sd) container_of(sd, struct ad5820_device, subdev)
+
+struct ad5820_device {
+ struct v4l2_subdev subdev;
+ struct ad5820_platform_data *platform_data;
+ struct regulator *vana;
+
+ struct v4l2_ctrl_handler ctrls;
+ u32 focus_absolute;
+ u32 focus_ramp_time;
+ u32 focus_ramp_mode;
+
+ struct mutex power_lock;
+ int power_count;
+
+ int standby : 1;
+};
+
The same for struct ad5820_device, is it really part of the public API?
Let me check what can be done with it.
Pavel
