[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yqj2cHuhjRhSIbDt@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:58:24 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Helmut Grohne <helmut.grohne@...enta.de>
Cc: Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...semi.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: da9062: enable being a
system-power-controller
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> The DA9062 can be the device used to power the CPU. In that case, it can
> be used to power off the system. In the CONTROL_A register, the M_*_EN
> bits must be zero for the corresponding *_EN bits to have an effect. We
> zero them all to turn off the system.
>
> Signed-off-by: Helmut Grohne <helmut.grohne@...enta.de>
> ---
> drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>
> This series effectively is a rebased resend. The earlier posting was
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200107120559.GA700@laureti-dev/. At that time,
> Adam Thomson critisized the use of regmap and i2c inside a pm_power_off hook
> since irqs are disabled. He reached out to Lee Jones, who asked Mark Brown and
> Wolfram Sang, but never got any reply. I noted that a fair number of other
> drivers do use regmap and i2c despite this issue. In the mean time, more
> instances were added:
> * drivers/mfd/acer-ec-a500.c uses i2c
> * drivers/mfd/ntxec.c uses i2c
> * drivers/mfd/rk808.c uses regmap and i2c
> Given that we proceeded with accepting the use of i2c and regmap inside
> pm_power_off hooks, I think we can proceed with this patch as well.
>
> Helmut
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c b/drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c
> index 2774b2cbaea6..e7af5b5f16e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c
> @@ -620,6 +620,23 @@ static const struct of_device_id da9062_dt_ids[] = {
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, da9062_dt_ids);
>
> +/* Hold client since pm_power_off is global. */
Please drop this comment.
> +static struct i2c_client *da9062_i2c_client;
> +
> +static void da9062_power_off(void)
> +{
> + struct da9062 *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(da9062_i2c_client);
> + const unsigned int mask = DA9062AA_SYSTEM_EN_MASK |
> + DA9062AA_POWER_EN_MASK | DA9062AA_POWER1_EN_MASK |
> + DA9062AA_M_SYSTEM_EN_MASK | DA9062AA_M_POWER_EN_MASK |
> + DA9062AA_M_POWER1_EN_MASK;
> + int ret = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap, DA9062AA_CONTROL_A, mask, 0);
This is messy. Please separate declarations and assignments here.
The top one is passable.
> + if (ret < 0)
> + dev_err(&da9062_i2c_client->dev,
> + "DA9062AA_CONTROL_A update failed, %d\n", ret);
You're talking to the user here.
Please use language that is more user-friendly.
> +}
> +
> static int da9062_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> {
> @@ -720,6 +737,15 @@ static int da9062_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> return ret;
> }
>
> + if (of_device_is_system_power_controller(i2c->dev.of_node)) {
> + if (!pm_power_off) {
> + da9062_i2c_client = i2c;
> + pm_power_off = da9062_power_off;
> + } else {
> + dev_warn(&i2c->dev, "Poweroff callback already assigned\n");
Do we really mind/care?
Is there anything we can do about it?
Thus, do we really need to warn() about it?
> + }
> + }
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -727,6 +753,11 @@ static int da9062_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> {
> struct da9062 *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(i2c);
>
> + if (pm_power_off == da9062_power_off)
> + pm_power_off = NULL;
> + if (da9062_i2c_client)
> + da9062_i2c_client = NULL;
> +
> mfd_remove_devices(chip->dev);
> regmap_del_irq_chip(i2c->irq, chip->regmap_irq);
>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists