Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add MediaTek MT6380 as one slave of pwrap

[Matthias Brugger]

On 08/15/2017 11:09 AM, sean.w...@mediatek.com wrote:
From: Sean Wang <sean.w...@mediatek.com>

Add MediaTek MT6380 regulator becoming one of PMIC wrapper slave
and also add extra new regmap_config of 32-bit mode for MT6380
since old regmap_config of 16-bit mode can't be fit into the need.

Signed-off-by: Chenglin Xu <chenglin...@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Zhong <chen.zh...@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.w...@mediatek.com>
---
  drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c 
b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
index 1f8b69a..047e3d9 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
@@ -501,6 +501,7 @@ struct pmic_wrapper;
  struct pwrap_slv_type {
        const u32 *dew_regs;
        enum pmic_type type;
+       const struct regmap_config *regmap;
        /* pwrap operations are highly associated with the PMIC types,
         * so the pointers added increases flexibility allowing determination
         * which type is used by the detection through device tree.
@@ -1109,7 +1110,7 @@ static irqreturn_t pwrap_interrupt(int irqno, void 
*dev_id)
        return IRQ_HANDLED;
  }
  
-static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config = {
+static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config16 = {
        .reg_bits = 16,
        .val_bits = 16,
        .reg_stride = 2,
@@ -1118,9 +1119,19 @@ static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config = {
        .max_register = 0xffff,
  };
  
+static const struct regmap_config pwrap_regmap_config32 = {
+       .reg_bits = 32,
+       .val_bits = 32,
+       .reg_stride = 4,
+       .reg_read = pwrap_regmap_read,
+       .reg_write = pwrap_regmap_write,
+       .max_register = 0xffff,
+};
+
  static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6323 = {
        .dew_regs = mt6323_regs,
        .type = PMIC_MT6323,
+       .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config16,
        .pwrap_read = pwrap_read16,
        .pwrap_write = pwrap_write16,
  };
@@ -1128,6 +1139,7 @@ static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6323 = {
  static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6380 = {
        .dew_regs = NULL,
        .type = PMIC_MT6380,
+       .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config32,
        .pwrap_read = pwrap_read32,
        .pwrap_write = pwrap_write32,
  };
@@ -1135,6 +1147,7 @@ static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6380 = {
  static const struct pwrap_slv_type pmic_mt6397 = {
        .dew_regs = mt6397_regs,
        .type = PMIC_MT6397,
+       .regmap = &pwrap_regmap_config16,
        .pwrap_read = pwrap_read16,
        .pwrap_write = pwrap_write16,
  };
@@ -1144,9 +1157,15 @@ static const struct of_device_id of_slave_match_tbl[] = {
                .compatible = "mediatek,mt6323",
                .data = &pmic_mt6323,
        }, {
+               /* The MT6380 slave device is directly pointed to the regulator
+                * device which is different from the cases MT6323 and MT6397
+                * where they're one kind of MFDs.
+                */
+               .compatible = "mediatek,mt6380-regulator",
+               .data = &pmic_mt6380,

I understand that mt6380 only provides a regulator and no other function other 
PMICs provide, right?

Then maybe write a comment like:
The MT6380 PMIC only implements a regulator, so we bind it directly instead of 
using a MFD. If so, we should state that in the pwrap bindings document, I think.

Regards,
Matthias