On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:58:17AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> CS5535 is the only user of mfd_clone_cell(). It makes more sense to
> register child devices in the traditional way and remove the quite
> bespoke mfd_clone_cell() call from the MFD API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mfd/cs5535-mfd.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cs5535-mfd.c b/drivers/mfd/cs5535-mfd.c
> index 053e33447808..96a99ac13384 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/cs5535-mfd.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/cs5535-mfd.c
> @@ -57,9 +57,17 @@ static struct mfd_cell cs5535_mfd_cells[] = {
> },
> };
>
> -static const char *olpc_acpi_clones[] = {
> - "olpc-xo1-pm-acpi",
> - "olpc-xo1-sci-acpi"
> +static struct mfd_cell cs5535_olpc_mfd_cells[] = {
> + {
> + .name = "olpc-xo1-pm-acpi",
> + .num_resources = 1,
> + .resources = &cs5535_mfd_resources[ACPI_BAR],
> + },
> + {
> + .name = "olpc-xo1-sci-acpi",
> + .num_resources = 1,
> + .resources = &cs5535_mfd_resources[ACPI_BAR],
> + },
Is the cs5535-acpi cell actually used by anything? I think it was only
ever used as a template and can be removed; I didn't spot any driver that
uses it.
PS If the cell were removed then my review comment on the previous patch
becomes moot ;-)
> };
>
> static int cs5535_mfd_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> @@ -105,10 +113,14 @@ static int cs5535_mfd_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> goto err_remove_devices;
> }
>
> - err = mfd_clone_cell("cs5535-acpi", olpc_acpi_clones,
> - ARRAY_SIZE(olpc_acpi_clones));
> + err = mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
> + cs5535_olpc_mfd_cells,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(cs5535_olpc_mfd_cells),
> + NULL, 0, NULL);
> if (err) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to clone MFD cell\n");
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> + "Failed to add CS5532 OLPC sub-devices: %d\n",
> + err);
> goto err_release_acpi;
> }
> }
> --
> 2.17.1
>
