On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 23:30, Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote: > > On 6/30/22 06:51, Peter Delevoryas wrote: > > From: Peter Delevoryas <p...@fb.com> > > > > This adds the ISL69259, using all the same functionality as the existing > > ISL69260 but overriding the IC_DEVICE_ID. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Delevoryas <p...@fb.com> > > --- > > hw/sensor/isl_pmbus_vr.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/hw/sensor/isl_pmbus_vr.c b/hw/sensor/isl_pmbus_vr.c > > index 799ea9d89e..853d70536f 100644 > > --- a/hw/sensor/isl_pmbus_vr.c > > +++ b/hw/sensor/isl_pmbus_vr.c > > @@ -119,6 +119,18 @@ static void raa228000_exit_reset(Object *obj) > > pmdev->pages[0].read_temperature_3 = 0; > > } > > > > +static void isl69259_exit_reset(Object *obj) > > +{ > > + ISLState *s = ISL69260(obj); > > + static const uint8_t ic_device_id[] = {0x04, 0x00, 0x81, 0xD2, 0x49, > > 0x3c}; > > This looks like an ISLClass attribute to me. In which case, you wouldn't need > the > reset handler nor the 'ic_device_id_len' field. > > Thanks, > > C.
I asked for this because, so far, I've been doing all the register defaults in reset handlers, including read-only registers. I don't mind either way, but it seemed preferable to have the devices consistent. Titus