On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Radu Pirea <radu.pirea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is the driver for at91-usart in spi mode. The USART IP can be configured
> to work in many modes and one of them is SPI.
> +#include <linux/gpio.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
Here is something wrong. You need to use latter one in new code.
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
Hmm... Do you need all of them?
> +static inline void at91_usart_spi_cs_activate(struct spi_device *spi)
> +{
...
> + gpiod_set_value(ausd->npcs_pin, active);
> + aus->cs_active = true;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void at91_usart_spi_cs_deactivate(struct spi_device *spi)
> +{
...
> + gpiod_set_value(ausd->npcs_pin, !active);
> + aus->cs_active = false;
> +}
...
> + if (!ausd) {
> + if (gpio_is_valid(spi->cs_gpio)) {
> + npcs_pin = gpio_to_desc(spi->cs_gpio);
...
> + }
...
> + gpiod_direction_output(npcs_pin, !(spi->mode & SPI_CS_HIGH));
> +
> + ausd->npcs_pin = npcs_pin;
...
> + }
I will refer to above as (1) later on.
> + dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "new message %p submitted for %s\n",
> + msg, dev_name(&spi->dev));
%p does make a very little sense.
> + list_for_each_entry(xfer, &msg->transfers, transfer_list) {
> + ret = at91_usart_spi_one_transfer(controller, msg, xfer);
> + if (ret)
> + goto msg_done;
> + }
Cant SPI core do this for your?
> +static void at91_usart_spi_cleanup(struct spi_device *spi)
> +{
> + struct at91_usart_spi_device *ausd = spi->controller_state;
> +
> + if (!ausd)
> + return;
Is it even possible?
Anyway the code below will work fine even if it's the case.
> +
> + spi->controller_state = NULL;
> + kfree(ausd);
> +}
> +static int at91_usart_spi_gpio_cs(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct spi_controller *controller = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + struct device_node *np = controller->dev.parent->of_node;
> + struct gpio_desc *cs_gpio;
> + int nb;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!np)
> + return 0;
> +
> + nb = of_gpio_named_count(np, "cs-gpios");
> + for (i = 0; i < nb; i++) {
> + cs_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node(&pdev->dev,
> + pdev->dev.parent->of_node,
> + "cs-gpios",
> + i, GPIOD_OUT_HIGH,
> + dev_name(&pdev->dev));
> + if (IS_ERR(cs_gpio))
> + return PTR_ERR(cs_gpio);
> + }
> +
> + controller->num_chipselect = nb;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
The question is, why you didn't utilize what SPI core provides you?
> + spi_writel(aus, MR, US_MR_SPI_MASTER | US_MR_CHRL | US_MR_CLKO |
> + US_MR_WRDBT);
> + spi_writel(aus, CR, US_CR_RXDIS | US_CR_TXDIS | US_CR_RSTRX |
> + US_CR_RSTTX);
I didn't check over, but it seems like you might have duplication in
these bitwise ORs. Consider to unify them into another (shorter)
definitions and reuse all over the code.
> + regs = platform_get_resource(to_platform_device(pdev->dev.parent),
> + IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> + if (!regs)
> + return -ENXIO;
Strange error code for getting MMIO resource. ENOMEM sounds better.
> + dev_info(&pdev->dev,
> + "Atmel USART SPI Controller version 0x%x at 0x%08lx (irq %d)\n",
> + spi_readl(aus, VERSION),
> + (unsigned long)regs->start, irq);
If you do explicit casting when printing something you are doing wrong.
Please use %pR or %pr in this case.
> +static struct platform_driver at91_usart_spi_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "at91_usart_spi",
> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(at91_usart_spi_dt_ids),
Can it work as pure platform driver? If no, of_match_ptr() is redundant.
> + },
> + .probe = at91_usart_spi_probe,
> + .remove = at91_usart_spi_remove, };
Two lines at one. Split.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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
