Subject: [PATCH v3 1/9] Input: pmic8xxx-pwrkey - Migrate to regmap APIs

From: [email-masked] (Josh Cartwright)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:13:58 -0600

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:05:40PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/26/14 15:59, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:05:54AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> Use the regmap APIs for this driver instead of custom pm8xxx
> >> APIs. This breaks this driver's dependency on the pm8xxx APIs and
> >> allows us to easily port it to other bus protocols in the future.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email-masked]>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/input/misc/pmic8xxx-pwrkey.c | 4 ++++
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/pmic8xxx-pwrkey.c b/drivers/input/misc/pmic8xxx-pwrkey.c
> >> index 0e1a05f95858..cf6125dc3b51 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/input/misc/pmic8xxx-pwrkey.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/pmic8xxx-pwrkey.c
> >> @@ -120,6 +120,10 @@ static int pmic8xxx_pwrkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>  		return -ENOMEM;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> +	regmap = dev_get_regmap(pdev->dev.parent, NULL);
> >> +	if (!regmap)
> >> +		return -ENODEV;
> >> +
> > This looks really weird.  A previous version of patch was included in
> > v3.14-rc1 (1e63bd9cc4), which already included a very similar hunk...
> >
> > Maybe the fact that the hunk isn't identical is why a rebase didn't drop
> > it (and instead, now if this gets merged, we'll have unnecessary
> > duplication).
> >
> 
> Ah yeah, sorry about that. This patch should just be ignored. I don't
> think it affects anything else in the series?

Yep, I think this can be safely ignored.

However, I think it needs to be made clear that your if "Modernize pm8921
with irqdomains, regmap, DT" lands before this patchset, this will start
breaking randconfig builds.  It isn't clear to me how this dependency
should be handled.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation