Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 8/8] mfd: zl3073x: Register DPLL sub-device during init

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2025, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 17. 04. 25 6:20 odp., Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Register DPLL sub-devices to expose this functionality provided
> > > > by ZL3073x chip family. Each sub-device represents one of the provided
> > > > DPLL channels.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >   drivers/mfd/zl3073x-core.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/zl3073x-core.c b/drivers/mfd/zl3073x-core.c
> > > > index 0bd31591245a2..fda77724a8452 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/zl3073x-core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/zl3073x-core.c
> > > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> > > >   #include <linux/device.h>
> > > >   #include <linux/export.h>
> > > >   #include <linux/math64.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> > > >   #include <linux/mfd/zl3073x.h>
> > > >   #include <linux/mfd/zl3073x_regs.h>
> > > >   #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > @@ -774,6 +775,20 @@ int zl3073x_dev_probe(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev,
> > > >   	if (rc)
> > > >   		return rc;
> > > > +	/* Add DPLL sub-device cell for each DPLL channel */
> > > > +	for (i = 0; i < chip_info->num_channels; i++) {
> > > > +		struct mfd_cell dpll_dev = MFD_CELL_BASIC("zl3073x-dpll", NULL,
> > > > +							  NULL, 0, i);
> > > 
> > > Create a static one of these with the maximum amount of channels.
> > 
> > Like this?
> > 
> > static const struct mfd_cell dpll_cells[] = {
> > 	MFD_CELL_BASIC("zl3073x-dpll", NULL, NULL, 0, 1),
> > 	MFD_CELL_BASIC("zl3073x-dpll", NULL, NULL, 0, 2),
> > 	MFD_CELL_BASIC("zl3073x-dpll", NULL, NULL, 0, 3),
> > 	MFD_CELL_BASIC("zl3073x-dpll", NULL, NULL, 0, 4),
> > 	MFD_CELL_BASIC("zl3073x-dpll", NULL, NULL, 0, 5),
> > };
> > 
> > rc = devm_mfd_add_devices(zldev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, dpll_cells,
> >                           chip_info->num_channels, NULL, 0, NULL);
> 
> Yes, looks better, thank you.

Sorry, just a thought.  Since this is non-standard, please make it easy
on the reader by providing a comment to say that this call will register
a variable number of devices depending on the value of num_channels.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]