On Mon, 12 May 2025, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> On 07. 05. 25 5:26 odp., Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 May 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 03:56:37PM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> > > > On 07. 05. 25 3:41 odp., Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 3:45 PM Ivan Vecera <ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > +static const struct zl3073x_pdata zl3073x_pdata[ZL3073X_MAX_CHANNELS] = {
> > > > > > + { .channel = 0, },
> > > > > > + { .channel = 1, },
> > > > > > + { .channel = 2, },
> > > > > > + { .channel = 3, },
> > > > > > + { .channel = 4, },
> > > > > > +};
> > > > >
> > > > > > +static const struct mfd_cell zl3073x_devs[] = {
> > > > > > + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 0),
> > > > > > + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 1),
> > > > > > + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 2),
> > > > > > + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 3),
> > > > > > + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 4),
> > > > > > +};
> > > > >
> > > > > > +#define ZL3073X_MAX_CHANNELS 5
> > > > >
> > > > > Btw, wouldn't be better to keep the above lists synchronised like
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Make ZL3073X_CELL() to use indexed variant
> > > > >
> > > > > [idx] = ...
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Define the channel numbers
> > > > >
> > > > > and use them in both data structures.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > WDYM?
> > > >
> > > > > OTOH, I'm not sure why we even need this. If this is going to be
> > > > > sequential, can't we make a core to decide which cell will be given
> > > > > which id?
> > > >
> > > > Just a note that after introduction of PHC sub-driver the array will look
> > > > like:
> > > > static const struct mfd_cell zl3073x_devs[] = {
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 0), // DPLL sub-dev for chan 0
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-phc", 0), // PHC sub-dev for chan 0
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 1), // ...
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-phc", 1),
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 2),
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-phc", 2),
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 3),
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-phc", 3),
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 4),
> > > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-phc", 4), // PHC sub-dev for chan 4
> > > > };
> > >
> > > Ah, this is very important piece. Then I mean only this kind of change
> > >
> > > enum {
> > > // this or whatever meaningful names
> > > ..._CH_0 0
> > > ..._CH_1 1
> > > ...
> > > };
> > >
> > > static const struct zl3073x_pdata zl3073x_pdata[ZL3073X_MAX_CHANNELS] = {
> > > { .channel = ..._CH_0, },
> > > ...
> > > };
> > >
> > > static const struct mfd_cell zl3073x_devs[] = {
> > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", ..._CH_0),
> > > ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-phc", ..._CH_0),
> > > ...
> > > };
> >
> > This is getting hectic. All for a sequential enumeration. Seeing as
> > there are no other differentiations, why not use IDA in the child
> > instead?
>
> For that, there have to be two IDAs, one for DPLLs and one for PHCs...
Sorry, can you explain a bit more. Why is this a problem?
The IDA API is very simple.
Much better than building your own bespoke MACROs.
> The approach in my second reply in this thread is simpler and taken
> in v8.
>
> <cite>
> +#define ZL3073X_PDATA(_channel) \
> + (&(const struct zl3073x_pdata) { \
> + .channel = _channel, \
> + })
> +
> +#define ZL3073X_CELL(_name, _channel) \
> + MFD_CELL_BASIC(_name, NULL, ZL3073X_PDATA(_channel), \
> + sizeof(struct zl3073x_pdata), 0)
> +
> +static const struct mfd_cell zl3073x_devs[] = {
> + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 0),
> + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 1),
> + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 2),
> + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 3),
> + ZL3073X_CELL("zl3073x-dpll", 4),
> +};
> </cite>
>
> Lee, WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Ivan
>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
