Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] regulator: Add refactored mtk-dvfsrc-regulator driver

From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: amergnat@baylibre.com, broonie@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, djakov@kernel.org,
	gustavoars@kernel.org, henryc.chen@mediatek.com,
	keescook@chromium.org, kernel@collabora.com,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
	robh@kernel.org, wenst@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] regulator: Add refactored mtk-dvfsrc-regulator driver
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:53:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6bd66ba2-7fcc-4981-a2cd-d4500540da76@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <93c12354-2e4d-4b21-bc96-eeb55442e365@wanadoo.fr>

Il 24/04/24 12:35, Christophe JAILLET ha scritto:
> Le 24/04/2024 à 11:54, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno a écrit :
>> The previous driver never worked, and never got even compiled because
>> it was missing the DVFSRC driver entirely, including needed neaders.
>>
>> This is a full (or nearly full) refactoring of the MediaTek DVFSRC
>> controlled Regulators driver, retaining support for the MT6873, MT8183
>> and MT8192 SoC, and adding MT8195.
>>
>> As part of the refactoring, this driver is now probed using its own
>> devicetree compatible, as this is a child of the main DVFSRC driver
>> and gets probed as a subnode of that.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
>> <angelogioacchino.delregno-ZGY8ohtN/8qB+jHODAdFcQ@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/regulator/mtk-dvfsrc-regulator.c | 196 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 196 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/mtk-dvfsrc-regulator.c
>>
> 
> ...
> 
>> +static int dvfsrc_vcore_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +    struct regulator_config config = { .dev = &pdev->dev };
>> +    const struct dvfsrc_regulator_pdata *pdata;
>> +    int i;
>> +
>> +    pdata = device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>> +    if (!pdata)
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < pdata->size; i++) {
>> +        struct regulator_desc *vrdesc = &pdata->descs[i];
>> +        struct regulator_dev *rdev;
>> +
>> +        rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, vrdesc, &config);
>> +        if (IS_ERR(rdev)) {
>> +            dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register %s\n", vrdesc->name);
>> +            return PTR_ERR(rdev);
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Nit: (in case of v6)
> 
>      dev_err_probe()?
> 

I don't think there's going to be any v6, as there's nothing else to do on
this series.

Mark, if you want to fix this up before applying, that should then be, exactly

		rdev = devm_regulator_register(&pdev->dev, vrdesc, &config);
		if (IS_ERR(rdev))
			dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(rdev),
				      "failed to register %s\n", vrdesc->name);

Otherwise, nevermind I guess..?

Cheers,
Angelo