[v2,4/5] mfd: rn5t618: register power off callback optionally
diff mbox

Message ID 20160608010429.19618-5-stefan@agner.ch
State Not Applicable
Headers show

Commit Message

Stefan Agner June 8, 2016, 1:04 a.m. UTC
Only register power off if the PMIC is defined as system power
controller (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/
power-controller.txt).

Reviewed-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
---
 drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Lee Jones June 16, 2016, 2:59 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016, Stefan Agner wrote:

> Only register power off if the PMIC is defined as system power
> controller (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/
> power-controller.txt).
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>

These should be chronological.

> ---
>  drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> index 7607ced..d9b4d40 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> @@ -103,9 +103,13 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!pm_power_off) {
> -		rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
> -		pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
> +	if (of_device_is_system_power_controller(i2c->dev.of_node)) {
> +		if (!pm_power_off) {
> +			rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
> +			pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
> +		} else {
> +			dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to set poweroff capability, already defined\n");

This is not an error.  Please use dev_warn() instead.

Also, is this message actually accurate?  Your commit message would
indicate that it's not.

> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  	return 0;
Stefan Agner June 19, 2016, 1:08 a.m. UTC | #2
On 2016-06-16 07:59, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016, Stefan Agner wrote:
> 
>> Only register power off if the PMIC is defined as system power
>> controller (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/
>> power-controller.txt).
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> 
> These should be chronological.
> 

Has been discussed already here:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-May/345835.html

It's an artifact of my development process, I keep the commits in my
local branches without signed off lines and add them before sending out
patches. So whenever I prepare a new revision, collected acks, sobs are
chronological, but end up before my sob.

But since you are the second maintainer which has objection to that
style I probably should change that...

>> ---
>>  drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 10 +++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
>> index 7607ced..d9b4d40 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
>> @@ -103,9 +103,13 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
>>  		return ret;
>>  	}
>>
>> -	if (!pm_power_off) {
>> -		rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
>> -		pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
>> +	if (of_device_is_system_power_controller(i2c->dev.of_node)) {
>> +		if (!pm_power_off) {
>> +			rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
>> +			pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
>> +		} else {
>> +			dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to set poweroff capability, already defined\n");
> 
> This is not an error.  Please use dev_warn() instead.
> 

Hm, I agree... FWIW, I copied the code (and that message) from here,
where dev_err is probably also not appropriate:
drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c


> Also, is this message actually accurate?  Your commit message would
> indicate that it's not.

Hm, maybe we should bail out with an error in that case since DT
explicitly asks to be power controller... Is that what you mean?

--
Stefan

> 
>> +		}
>>  	}
>>
>>  	return 0;
Lee Jones June 20, 2016, 9 a.m. UTC | #3
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Stefan Agner wrote:

> On 2016-06-16 07:59, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jun 2016, Stefan Agner wrote:
> > 
> >> Only register power off if the PMIC is defined as system power
> >> controller (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/
> >> power-controller.txt).
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
> > 
> > These should be chronological.
> > 
> 
> Has been discussed already here:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-May/345835.html
> 
> It's an artifact of my development process, I keep the commits in my
> local branches without signed off lines and add them before sending out
> patches. So whenever I prepare a new revision, collected acks, sobs are
> chronological, but end up before my sob.
> 
> But since you are the second maintainer which has objection to that
> style I probably should change that...

It would make your life easier in the long run. :)

> >> ---
> >>  drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 10 +++++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> >> index 7607ced..d9b4d40 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> >> @@ -103,9 +103,13 @@ static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> >>  		return ret;
> >>  	}
> >>
> >> -	if (!pm_power_off) {
> >> -		rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
> >> -		pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
> >> +	if (of_device_is_system_power_controller(i2c->dev.of_node)) {
> >> +		if (!pm_power_off) {
> >> +			rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
> >> +			pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
> >> +		} else {
> >> +			dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to set poweroff capability, already defined\n");
> > 
> > This is not an error.  Please use dev_warn() instead.
> > 
> 
> Hm, I agree... FWIW, I copied the code (and that message) from here,
> where dev_err is probably also not appropriate:
> drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c

Mark (Regulator maintainer) also accepts patches.

> > Also, is this message actually accurate?  Your commit message would
> > indicate that it's not.
> 
> Hm, maybe we should bail out with an error in that case since DT
> explicitly asks to be power controller... Is that what you mean?

I think I misunderstood the message.  To fix this I would reword it.

"Poweroff call-back already defined"

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
index 7607ced..d9b4d40 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
@@ -103,9 +103,13 @@  static int rn5t618_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	if (!pm_power_off) {
-		rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
-		pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
+	if (of_device_is_system_power_controller(i2c->dev.of_node)) {
+		if (!pm_power_off) {
+			rn5t618_pm_power_off = priv;
+			pm_power_off = rn5t618_power_off;
+		} else {
+			dev_err(&i2c->dev, "Failed to set poweroff capability, already defined\n");
+		}
 	}
 
 	return 0;