[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220614115824.289aebce@jic23-huawei>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:58:24 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>
Cc: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@...rphone.com>,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
Markuss Broks <markuss.broks@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
Song Qiang <songqiang1304521@...il.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] proximity: vl53l0x: Handle the VDD regulator
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:48:53 +0100
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:28:22 +0200
> Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > On Sonntag, 12. Juni 2022 10:53:33 CEST Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 12:18:52 +0200
> > >
> > > "Luca Weiss" <luca.weiss@...rphone.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Markuss,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon May 23, 2022 at 7:53 PM CEST, Markuss Broks wrote:
> > > > > Handle the regulator supplying the VDD pin of VL53L0X.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Markuss Broks <markuss.broks@...il.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > drivers/iio/proximity/vl53l0x-i2c.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/vl53l0x-i2c.c
> > > > > b/drivers/iio/proximity/vl53l0x-i2c.c index 12a3e2eff464..8581a873919f
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/proximity/vl53l0x-i2c.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/vl53l0x-i2c.c
> > > > > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
> > > > >
> > > > > struct vl53l0x_data {
> > > > >
> > > > > struct i2c_client *client;
> > > > > struct completion completion;
> > > > >
> > > > > + struct regulator *vdd_supply;
> > > > >
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > static irqreturn_t vl53l0x_handle_irq(int irq, void *priv)
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -192,10 +193,31 @@ static const struct iio_info vl53l0x_info = {
> > > > >
> > > > > .read_raw = vl53l0x_read_raw,
> > > > >
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void vl53l0x_power_off(void *_data)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct vl53l0x_data *data = _data;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + regulator_disable(data->vdd_supply);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int vl53l0x_power_on(struct vl53l0x_data *data)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + ret = regulator_enable(data->vdd_supply);
> > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + usleep_range(3200, 5000);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > static int vl53l0x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > struct vl53l0x_data *data;
> > > > > struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> > > > >
> > > > > + int error;
> > > > >
> > > > > indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*data));
> > > > > if (!indio_dev)
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -210,6 +232,21 @@ static int vl53l0x_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > > > >
> > > > > I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA))
> > > > >
> > > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > >
> > > > > + data->vdd_supply = devm_regulator_get_optional(&client->dev,
> > "vdd");
> > > > > + if (IS_ERR(data->vdd_supply))
> > > > > + return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, PTR_ERR(data-
> > >vdd_supply),
> > > > > + "Unable to get VDD
> > regulator\n");
> > > >
> > > > It looks like this optional regulator is not actually optional.
> > > >
> > > > [ 1.919995] vl53l0x-i2c 1-0029: error -ENODEV: Unable to get VDD
> > > > regulator
> > > >
> > > > When using devm_regulator_get instead, a dummy regulator gets returned
> > > > which I think is what we want here:
> > > >
> > > > [ 1.905518] vl53l0x-i2c 1-0029: supply vdd not found, using dummy
> > > > regulator
> > > >
> > > > Can you fix this up or should I send a patch?
> > >
> > > Hi Luca,
> > >
> > > Please send a patch.
> >
> > Which commit sha can I use for Fixes: here?
> > Based your togreg[0] branch currently shows "Age: 20 hours" I guess it was
> > rebased recently?
>
> It was rebased onto rc1 as you noticed.
>
> In theory it is now stable, assuming nothing nasty shows up.
> Fixes tag doesn't matter strongly given both will go into mainline via
> the same pull request, so maybe just skip adding one to make my life
> easier :)
The 'in theory stable' bit lasted a few more mins as I had a patch
I'd otherwise needed to have done a messy revert for.
So definitely safer to skip the Fixes tag for this, though I do
have scripts that check them and should in theory fix it up
if it is based on stale version of togreg. It's just fiddly
to do.
Thanks
Jonathan
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Luca
> >
> > [0]https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git/log/?h=togreg
> >
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Luca
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + error = vl53l0x_power_on(data);
> > > > > + if (error)
> > > > > + return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, error,
> > > > > + "Failed to power on the
> > chip\n");
> > > > > +
> > > > > + error = devm_add_action_or_reset(&client->dev, vl53l0x_power_off,
> > > > > data);
> > > > > + if (error)
> > > > > + return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, error,
> > > > > + "Failed to install poweroff
> > action\n");
> > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > indio_dev->name = "vl53l0x";
> > > > > indio_dev->info = &vl53l0x_info;
> > > > > indio_dev->channels = vl53l0x_channels;
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists