[PATCH v3 09/11] regulator: tps6594-regulator: Add TI TPS65224 PMIC regulators

[Bhargav Raviprakash]

Hello,

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:28:00 +0100, Esteban Blanc wrote:
> On Fri Mar 8, 2024 at 11:34 AM CET, Bhargav Raviprakash wrote:
> > From: Nirmala Devi Mal Nadar <m.nirmaladevi at ltts.com>
> >
> > Add support for TPS65224 regulators (bucks and LDOs) to TPS6594 driver as
> > they have significant functional overlap. TPS65224 PMIC has 4 buck
> > regulators and 3 LDOs. BUCK12 can operate in dual phase.
> > The output voltages are configurable and are meant to supply power to the
> > main processor and other components.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nirmala Devi Mal Nadar <m.nirmaladevi at ltts.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Bhargav Raviprakash <bhargav.r at ltts.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/regulator/Kconfig             |   4 +-
> >  drivers/regulator/tps6594-regulator.c | 236 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  2 files changed, 215 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps6594-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps6594-regulator.c
> > index b7f0c8779..37d76c483 100644
> > --- a/drivers/regulator/tps6594-regulator.c
> > +++ b/drivers/regulator/tps6594-regulator.c
> > @@ -412,14 +562,20 @@ static int tps6594_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	struct tps6594_ext_regulator_irq_data *irq_ext_reg_data;
> >  	struct tps6594_regulator_irq_type *irq_type;
> >  	u8 buck_configured[BUCK_NB] = { 0 };
> > +	u8 ldo_configured[LDO_NB] = { 0 };
> >  	u8 buck_multi[MULTI_PHASE_NB] = { 0 };
> >  	static const char * const multiphases[] = {"buck12", "buck123", "buck1234", "buck34"};
> 
> `multiphases` should prefixed like the new one.
> 

Sure! This will be fixed in the next version.

> > +	static const char * const tps65224_multiphases[] = {"buck12"};
> 
> > @@ -495,25 +660,30 @@ static int tps6594_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	if (!irq_data)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > -	for (i = 0; i < MULTI_PHASE_NB; i++) {
> > +	for (i = 0; i < multi_phase_cnt; i++) {
> >  		if (buck_multi[i] == 0)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> > +		const struct regulator_desc *multi_regs = (tps->chip_id == TPS65224) ?
> > +							   tps65224_multi_regs :
> > +							   tps6594_multi_regs;
> 
> This should be declared at the top of the function.
> 
> >  		rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &multi_regs[i], &config);
> > -		if (IS_ERR(rdev))
> > -			return dev_err_probe(tps->dev, PTR_ERR(rdev),
> > -					     "failed to register %s regulator\n",
> > -					     pdev->name);
> > +			if (IS_ERR(rdev))
> > +				return dev_err_probe(tps->dev, PTR_ERR(rdev),
> > +						     "failed to register %s regulator\n",
> > +						     pdev->name);
> 
> The indentation of the `if` looks odd. You should revert this.
> 

Sure, will fix this in the next version.

> > @@ -537,21 +707,34 @@ static int tps6594_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  		if (buck_configured[i] == 1)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> > -		rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, &buck_regs[i], &config);
> > +		const struct regulator_desc *buck_cfg = (tps->chip_id == TPS65224) ?
> > +							 tps65224_buck_regs : buck_regs;
> 
> Same here, should be at the top of the function.
> 
> > -	/* LP8764 dosen't have LDO */
> > +	/* LP8764 doesn't have LDO */
> >  	if (tps->chip_id != LP8764) {
> > -		for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ldo_regs); i++) {
> > +		for (i = 0; i < LDO_NB; i++) {
> > +			if (ldo_configured[i] == 1)
> > +				continue;
> > +
> > +			struct tps6594_regulator_irq_type **ldos_irq_types =
> > +						(tps->chip_id == TPS65224) ?
> > +						tps65224_ldos_irq_types : tps6594_ldos_irq_types;
> > +
> > +			const struct regulator_desc *ldo_regs =
> > +						(tps->chip_id == TPS65224) ?
> > +						tps65224_ldo_regs : tps6594_ldo_regs;
> 
> Should be at the top of the function, please fix this in the whole file.

Thanks! In the next version will move declaration to start of the function.

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> Esteban "Skallwar" Blanc
> BayLibre

Regards,
Bhargav