On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 6:59 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > /*
> > * 'process_lock' exists because ocores_process() and ocores_process_timeout()
> > @@ -239,8 +240,13 @@ static irqreturn_t ocores_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > struct ocores_i2c *i2c = dev_id;
> > u8 stat = oc_getreg(i2c, OCI2C_STATUS);
> >
> > - if (!(stat & OCI2C_STAT_IF))
> > + if (i2c->flags && SIFIVE_FLAG_POLL) {
>
> Do you really want && here?
>
> > + if (stat & OCI2C_STAT_IF)
> > + if (!(stat & OCI2C_STAT_BUSY))
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > + } else if (!(stat & OCI2C_STAT_IF)) {
> > return IRQ_NONE;
> > + }
> >
> > ocores_process(i2c, stat);
> >
> > @@ -356,6 +362,11 @@ static void ocores_process_polling(struct ocores_i2c *i2c)
> > ret = ocores_isr(-1, i2c);
> > if (ret == IRQ_NONE)
> > break; /* all messages have been transferred */
> > + else {
> > + if (i2c->flags && SIFIVE_FLAG_POLL)
>
> And here?
>
> > + if (i2c->state == STATE_DONE)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -406,7 +417,7 @@ static int ocores_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
> > {
> > struct ocores_i2c *i2c = i2c_get_adapdata(adap);
> >
> > - if (i2c->flags & OCORES_FLAG_POLL)
> > + if ((i2c->flags & OCORES_FLAG_POLL) || (i2c->flags & SIFIVE_FLAG_POLL))
>
> You can combine this
Thanks for your suggestion's Andrew.
Yes, I will optimize this.
>
> if ((i2c->flags & (OCORES_FLAG_POLL | SIFIVE_FLAG_POLL))
>
> > return ocores_xfer_polling(adap, msgs, num);
> > return ocores_xfer_core(i2c, msgs, num, false);
> > }
> > @@ -597,6 +608,7 @@ static int ocores_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > struct ocores_i2c *i2c;
> > struct ocores_i2c_platform_data *pdata;
> > + const struct of_device_id *match;
> > struct resource *res;
> > int irq;
> > int ret;
> > @@ -678,13 +690,21 @@ static int ocores_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > if (irq == -ENXIO) {
> > - i2c->flags |= OCORES_FLAG_POLL;
> > + /*
> > + * Set a SIFIVE_FLAG_POLL to enable workaround for FU540
> > + * in polling mode interface of i2c-ocore driver.
> > + */
> > + match = of_match_node(ocores_i2c_match, pdev->dev.of_node);
> > + if (match && (long)match->data == TYPE_SIFIVE_REV0)
> > + i2c->flags |= SIFIVE_FLAG_POLL;
> > + else
> > + i2c->flags |= OCORES_FLAG_POLL;
>
> Please take a look at the whole code, and consider if it is better to
> set both SIFIVE_FLAG_POLL and OCORES_FLAG_POLL. Maybe rename
> SIFIVE_FLAG_POLL to OCORES_FLAG_BROKEN_IRQ_BIT?
>
The intent of this patch is to add a workaround for hardware errratum
of FU540 a SiFive Device,
hence I had named the flag accordingly. Yes,
OCORES_FLAG_BROKEN_IRQ_BIT is a better and generic term,
I will rename and resubmit this patch
-Thanks
Sagar
> Thanks
> Andrew
