Thanks Marek,
> On 23 May 2018 12:43 Marek Vasut wrote,
>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+rene...@glider.be>;
> Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>; Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>; Steve
> Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>;
> Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>;
> linux-renesas-...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
>
> Add support for DA9063L, which is a reduced variant of the DA9063 with less
> regulators and without RTC.
>
There's potentially more to this file. Without an RTC the regmap access tables
would change and the
usual DA9063 (BB silicon) tables would become invalid.
The tables for da9063_bb_readable_ranges, da9063_bb_writeable_ranges,
da9063_bb_volatile_ranges,
would need to be updated for DA9063L, if a new chip model was needed.
The new ranges would be this (see below), and would remove any RTC accesses in
the new chip model.
static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_readable_ranges[] = {
{
.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_T_OFFSET,
.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_CHIP_ID,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_CHIP_VARIANT,
},
};
static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_writeable_ranges[] = {
{
.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_FAULT_LOG,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_VSYS_MON,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONFIG_I,
.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_4,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_0,
.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
},
};
static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_volatile_ranges[] = {
{
.range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_A,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_B,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_E,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_F,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_BCORE2_CONT,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_LDO11_CONT,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_DVC_1,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_ADC_MAN,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_ADC_RES_L,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
.range_max = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
}, {
.range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_5,
.range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_6,
},
};
However this is a larger and more wide-ranging change compared to the one
proposed by Marek,
and would require other alterations to fit this in. Also I'm undecided to what
it would really add
apart from a new chip model: I have been told accessing the DA9063 RTC register
locations has
no effect in the DA9063L.
If the maintainers are happy with this, and if a chip model addition is really
needed in future
it can be added later if required.
Acked-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
Regards,
Steve
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensou...@diasemi.com>
> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com>
> Cc: linux-renesas-...@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c index
> 5544ce8e3363..84bbd2bbcd2a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ static struct regmap_config da9063_regmap_config = {
>
> static const struct of_device_id da9063_dt_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "dlg,da9063", },
> + { .compatible = "dlg,da9063l", },
> { }
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, da9063_dt_ids); @@ -282,6 +283,7 @@ static int
> da9063_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
>
> static const struct i2c_device_id da9063_i2c_id[] = {
> { "da9063", PMIC_TYPE_DA9063 },
> + { "da9063l", PMIC_TYPE_DA9063L },
> {},
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, da9063_i2c_id);
> --
> 2.16.2
