On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:40:54AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
>> +/**
>> + * After resuming from suspend it may happen that IRQ is signalled but
>> + * IRQ GPIO is not high. Also the interrupt registers won't have any data
>> + * (all of them equal to 0x00).
>> + *
>> + * In such case retry few times reading the interrupt registers.
>> + */
>> +#define IRQ_READ_REG_RETRY_CNT 5
>
> What is the cause here? This smells like an unreliable workaround for
> some other behaviour. In general this all looks very like standard
> regmap code.
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < MAX14577_IRQ_REGS_NUM; i++) {
>> + u8 mask_reg = max14577_mask_reg[i];
>> +
>> + if (mask_reg == MAX14577_REG_INVALID ||
>> + IS_ERR_OR_NULL(max14577->regmap))
>> + continue;
>
> Why would this code even be running if you don't have a register map?
>
>> + dev_info(max14577->dev, "Got interrupts [1:0x%02x, 2:0x%02x, 3:0x%02x]\n",
>> + irq_reg[MAX14577_IRQ_INT1], irq_reg[MAX14577_IRQ_INT2],
>> + irq_reg[MAX14577_IRQ_INT3]);
>
> This is far too noisy, dev_dbg() at most.
>
>> + gpio_val = gpio_get_value(pdata->irq_gpio);
>> +
>> + if (gpio_get_value(pdata->irq_gpio) == 0)
>> + dev_warn(max14577->dev, "IRQ GPIO is not high, retry reading interrupt registers\n");
>> + } while (gpio_val == 0 && --retry > 0);
>
> This looks very strange...
>
>> + max14577->irq = gpio_to_irq(pdata->irq_gpio);
>> + ret = gpio_request(pdata->irq_gpio, "max14577_irq");
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(max14577->dev, "Failed requesting GPIO %d: %d\n",
>> + pdata->irq_gpio, ret);
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> + gpio_direction_input(pdata->irq_gpio);
>> + gpio_free(pdata->irq_gpio);
>
> This means the GPIO handling code that was present in the handling is
> broken, it's trying to use the GPIO after it was freed.
>
>> + ret = request_threaded_irq(max14577->irq, NULL, max14577_irq_thread,
>> + IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>> + "max14577-irq", max14577);
>
> Are you *positive* this is a falling triggered IRQ? All the code to do
> with spinning reading the GPIO state during handling makes it look like
> this is in fact an active low interrupt and a lot of the code in here is
> working around trying to handle that as the wrong kind of IRQ.
It's not work with level triggering. as wm8994, it requires edge
triggering. previous time I send RFC patch to handle edge triggering
at regmap.
>
>> +int max14577_bulk_write(struct regmap *map, u8 reg, u8 *buf, int count)
>> +{
>> + return regmap_bulk_write(map, reg, buf, count);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(max14577_bulk_write);
>
> Given that these are basically all trivial wrappers around regmap they
> probably ought to be static inlines in the header.
>
>> +static struct max14577_platform_data *max14577_i2c_parse_dt(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>
> There's no DT binding document?
>
>> +const struct dev_pm_ops max14577_pm = {
>> + .suspend = max14577_suspend,
>> + .resume = max14577_resume,
>> +};
>
> SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS().
>
>> +static int __init max14577_i2c_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return i2c_add_driver(&max14577_i2c_driver);
>> +}
>> +subsys_initcall(max14577_i2c_init);
>
> Why not module_i2c_driver?
there's ordering issue, it should provide regulator which is used
others before USB probe. if not, it failed to use USB.
Other PMICs use also subsys_initcall for this reason.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
