[PATCH v4 2/2] regulator: add device tree support for max8997
Thomas Abraham
thomas.abraham at linaro.org
Tue Apr 17 14:35:59 EDT 2012
On 28 March 2012 22:33, Karol Lewandowski <k.lewandowsk at samsung.com> wrote:
> On 24.03.2012 10:49, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas!
>
>> Add device tree based discovery support for max8997.
> ...
>> +Regulators: The regulators of max8997 that have to be instantiated should be
>> +included in a sub-node named 'regulators'. Regulator nodes included in this
>> +sub-node should be of the format as below. Note: The 'n' in LDOn and BUCKn
>> +represents the LDO or BUCK number as per the datasheet of max8997.
>> +
>> + For LDO's:
>> + LDOn {
>> + standard regulator bindings here
>> + };
>> +
>> + For BUCK's:
>> + BUCKn {
>> + standard regulator bindings here
>> + };
>> +
>
>
> Small note - driver supports[1] configuring following regulators by
> using respective DT node names:
>
> - EN32KHz_AP
> - EN32KHz_CP
> - ENVICHG
> - ESAFEOUT1
> - ESAFEOUT2
> - CHARGER
> - CHARGER_CV
> - CHARGER_TOPOFF
>
> I wonder if these should be mentioned in documentation too.
>
> [1] These are used in e.g. mach-nuri.c
Yes, I missed the above regulators in the documentation. I have
included them now and will resubmit this patch.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max8997.c b/drivers/regulator/max8997.c> index 9657929..dce8aaf 100644
>
>> --- a/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
> ..
>> +static int max8997_pmic_dt_parse_pdata(struct max8997_dev *iodev,
>> + struct max8997_platform_data *pdata)
>> +{
>> + struct device_node *pmic_np, *regulators_np, *reg_np;
>> + struct max8997_regulator_data *rdata;
>> + unsigned int i, dvs_voltage_nr = 1, ret;
>> +
>> + pmic_np = iodev->dev->of_node;
>> + if (!pmic_np) {
>> + dev_err(iodev->dev, "could not find pmic sub-node\n");
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> +
>> + regulators_np = of_find_node_by_name(pmic_np, "regulators");
>> + if (!regulators_np) {
>> + dev_err(iodev->dev, "could not find regulators sub-node\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* count the number of regulators to be supported in pmic */
>> + pdata->num_regulators = 0;
>> + for_each_child_of_node(regulators_np, reg_np)
>> + pdata->num_regulators++;
>> +
>> + rdata = devm_kzalloc(iodev->dev, sizeof(*rdata) *
>> + pdata->num_regulators, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!rdata) {
>> + dev_err(iodev->dev, "could not allocate memory for "
>> + "regulator data\n");
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>
>> + pdata->regulators = rdata;
>
>> + for_each_child_of_node(regulators_np, reg_np) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(regulators); i++)
>> + if (!of_node_cmp(reg_np->name, regulators[i].name))
>> + break;
>> + rdata->id = i;
>
>
> rdata->id will be equal to ARRAY_SIZE(regulators) when one adds DT node
> name (below "regulators") which is different from what can be found in
> regulators[] table.
>
> On my test machine this results in hard lockup - possibly because
> something tries to access regulators[ARRAY_SIZE(regulators)]
> later on.
>
> Following patch fixes this on my machine (using DTS with misspelled LDO1 for LDx1):
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max8997.c b/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
> index dce8aaf..c20fd72 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/max8997.c
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,13 @@ static int max8997_pmic_dt_parse_pdata(struct max8997_dev *iodev,
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(regulators); i++)
> if (!of_node_cmp(reg_np->name, regulators[i].name))
> break;
> +
> + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(regulators)) {
> + dev_warn(iodev->dev, "don't know how to configure regulator %s\n",
> + reg_np->name);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> rdata->id = i;
> rdata->initdata = of_get_regulator_init_data(
> iodev->dev, reg_np);
>
Thanks for this fix. I have merged this change into this patch.
Regards,
Thomas.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Karol Lewandowski | Samsung Poland R&D Center | Linux/Platform
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list