drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ drivers/mfd/rohm-bd718x7.c | 123 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 2 files changed, 183 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
Now that gpio-keys can use platform resources to identify interrupts
assigned to buttons we can convert ROHM power buttons to use software
nodes and device properties for configuration, removing the need to use
platform data.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v5:
Addressed Lee's comments:
- moved static constants out of function to module level
- added #defines for nodes' indexes
- adjusted error message
- renamed "error" to "ret"
- dropped unneeded comments
- Link to v4: https://patch.msgid.link/20260427-rohm-software-nodes-v4-0-ffeb5b0c4774@gmail.com
Changes in v4:
- avoid using compound literals in assignments
- Link to v3: https://patch.msgid.link/20260324-rohm-software-nodes-v3-0-edde5a0324d5@gmail.com
Changes in v3:
- Stopped mixing code and variable declarations, use more temps
- Moved assignment to irq_domain closer to where is is being used
- Added missing SOB
- Link to v2: https://patch.msgid.link/20260322-rohm-software-nodes-v2-0-3c7d21336d37@gmail.com
v2:
- dropped patch to gpio-keys as it is in the mainline now
- reworked the both drivers to dynamically allocate per-device software
nodes
v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250817224731.1911207-1-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com/
---
Dmitry Torokhov (2):
mfd: rohm-bd71828: Use software nodes for gpio-keys
mfd: rohm-bd718x7: Use software nodes for gpio-keys
drivers/mfd/rohm-bd71828.c | 125 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
drivers/mfd/rohm-bd718x7.c | 123 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
2 files changed, 183 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: ec039126b7fac4e3af35ebccaa7c6f9b6875ba81
change-id: 20260313-rohm-software-nodes-0b4a3d36128c
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On 11/06/2026 18:48, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Now that gpio-keys can use platform resources to identify interrupts > assigned to buttons we can convert ROHM power buttons to use software > nodes and device properties for configuration, removing the need to use > platform data. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > ---> Changes in v5: > Addressed Lee's comments: > - moved static constants out of function to module level > - added #defines for nodes' indexes > - adjusted error message > - renamed "error" to "ret" > - dropped unneeded comments > - Link to v4: https://patch.msgid.link/20260427-rohm-software-nodes-v4-0-ffeb5b0c4774@gmail.com I think I did already review these? Is there a reason my tags were dropped? Yours, -- Matti
On 12/06/2026 07:38, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 11/06/2026 18:48, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> Now that gpio-keys can use platform resources to identify interrupts >> assigned to buttons we can convert ROHM power buttons to use software >> nodes and device properties for configuration, removing the need to use >> platform data. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > ---> Changes in v5: >> Addressed Lee's comments: >> - moved static constants out of function to module level >> - added #defines for nodes' indexes >> - adjusted error message >> - renamed "error" to "ret" >> - dropped unneeded comments >> - Link to v4: https://patch.msgid.link/20260427-rohm-software-nodes- >> v4-0-ffeb5b0c4774@gmail.com > > I think I did already review these? Is there a reason my tags were dropped? "These" referring to these patches, not the v5 changes (which seem minor to drop the tags). Furthermore, is there a reason I was not CC'd? Especially if there was a reason to drop the tags. -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Hi Matti, On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 07:40:49AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 12/06/2026 07:38, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > On 11/06/2026 18:48, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Now that gpio-keys can use platform resources to identify interrupts > > > assigned to buttons we can convert ROHM power buttons to use software > > > nodes and device properties for configuration, removing the need to use > > > platform data. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > > ---> Changes in v5: > > > Addressed Lee's comments: > > > - moved static constants out of function to module level > > > - added #defines for nodes' indexes > > > - adjusted error message > > > - renamed "error" to "ret" > > > - dropped unneeded comments > > > - Link to v4: https://patch.msgid.link/20260427-rohm-software-nodes- > > > v4-0-ffeb5b0c4774@gmail.com > > > > I think I did already review these? Is there a reason my tags were dropped? > > "These" referring to these patches, not the v5 changes (which seem minor to > drop the tags). Sorry, I decided to exercise caution and not carry over the tags. I apologize for the mistake. > Furthermore, is there a reason I was not CC'd? Especially if > there was a reason to drop the tags. I see the following on the emails: > To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> so I am not sure why they did not reach you... Thanks. -- Dmitry
On 12/06/2026 08:09, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Matti, > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 07:40:49AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: >> On 12/06/2026 07:38, Matti Vaittinen wrote: >>> On 11/06/2026 18:48, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> Now that gpio-keys can use platform resources to identify interrupts >>>> assigned to buttons we can convert ROHM power buttons to use software >>>> nodes and device properties for configuration, removing the need to use >>>> platform data. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> >>> > ---> Changes in v5: >>>> Addressed Lee's comments: >>>> - moved static constants out of function to module level >>>> - added #defines for nodes' indexes >>>> - adjusted error message >>>> - renamed "error" to "ret" >>>> - dropped unneeded comments >>>> - Link to v4: https://patch.msgid.link/20260427-rohm-software-nodes- >>>> v4-0-ffeb5b0c4774@gmail.com >>> >>> I think I did already review these? Is there a reason my tags were dropped? >> >> "These" referring to these patches, not the v5 changes (which seem minor to >> drop the tags). > > Sorry, I decided to exercise caution and not carry over the tags. Understood. I think there is no generally accepted "golden rule" when to drop the tags. I just personally prefer keeping tags unless there are functional changes. That helps me avoid going "Deja Vu" -reviews. The patches look good to me. >> Furthermore, is there a reason I was not CC'd? Especially if >> there was a reason to drop the tags. > > I see the following on the emails: > >> To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> > > so I am not sure why they did not reach you... Ah. This is 100% my bad. I was only checking the CC-field. I need to fix my filters. Yours, -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.