Hi Sachin,
On 04/16/2014 12:48 PM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> Hi Chanwoo,
>
> On 14 April 2014 14:37, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This patch control special clock for ADC in Exynos series's FSYS block.
>> If special clock of ADC is registerd on clock list of common clk framework,
>> Exynos ADC drvier have to control this clock.
>>
>> Exynos3250/Exynos4/Exynos5 has 'adc' clock as following:
>> - 'adc' clock: bus clock for ADC
>>
>> Exynos3250 has additional 'sclk_tsadc' clock as following:
>> - 'sclk_tsadc' clock: special clock for ADC which provide clock to internal ADC
>>
>> Exynos 4210/4212/4412 and Exynos5250/5420 has not included 'sclk_tsadc' clock
>> in FSYS_BLK. But, Exynos3250 based on Cortex-A7 has only included 'sclk_tsadc'
>> clock in FSYS_BLK.
>>
>> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
>> Cc: linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>> index d25b262..3c99243 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>> @@ -40,8 +40,9 @@
>> #include <linux/iio/driver.h>
>>
>> enum adc_version {
>> - ADC_V1,
>> - ADC_V2
>> + ADC_V1 = 0x1,
>> + ADC_V2 = 0x2,
>> + ADC_V3 = (ADC_V1 | ADC_V2),
>
> Can't this be simply 0x3? Or is this not really a h/w version?
Even thought ADC_V3 isn't h/w revision, ADC_V3 include all featues of ADC_V2
and only one difference of clock(sclk_tsadc) from ADC_V2.
I want to describethat ADC_V3 include ADC_V2 feature So, I add as following:
>> + ADC_V3 = (ADC_V1 | ADC_V2),
>
>> };
>>
>> /* EXYNOS4412/5250 ADC_V1 registers definitions */
>> @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
>> void __iomem *regs;
>> void __iomem *enable_reg;
>> struct clk *clk;
>> + struct clk *sclk;
>> unsigned int irq;
>> struct regulator *vdd;
>>
>> @@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
>> static const struct of_device_id exynos_adc_match[] = {
>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v1", .data = (void *)ADC_V1 },
>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2", .data = (void *)ADC_V2 },
>> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v3", .data = (void *)ADC_V3 },
>> {},
>> };
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_adc_match);
>> @@ -128,7 +131,7 @@ static int exynos_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>>
>> /* Select the channel to be used and Trigger conversion */
>> - if (info->version == ADC_V2) {
>> + if (info->version & ADC_V2) {
>
> So, now this would be applicable for ADC_V3 too, right?
>
>
>> con2 = readl(ADC_V2_CON2(info->regs));
>> con2 &= ~ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_MASK;
>> con2 |= ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_SEL(chan->address);
>> @@ -165,7 +168,7 @@ static irqreturn_t exynos_adc_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> info->value = readl(ADC_V1_DATX(info->regs)) &
>> ADC_DATX_MASK;
>> /* clear irq */
>> - if (info->version == ADC_V2)
>> + if (info->version & ADC_V2)
>> writel(1, ADC_V2_INT_ST(info->regs));
>> else
>> writel(1, ADC_V1_INTCLR(info->regs));
>> @@ -226,11 +229,25 @@ static int exynos_adc_remove_devices(struct device *dev, void *c)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static void exynos_adc_enable_clock(struct exynos_adc *info, bool enable)
>> +{
>> + if (enable) {
>> + clk_prepare_enable(info->clk);
>
> This could fail. Is it OK without any checks?
OK, I'll check return value.
>
>> + if (info->version == ADC_V3)
>> + clk_prepare_enable(info->sclk);
>
> ditto.
ditto.
>
>> +
>> + } else {
>> + if (info->version == ADC_V3)
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->sclk);
>> + clk_disable_unprepare(info->clk);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> static void exynos_adc_hw_init(struct exynos_adc *info)
>> {
>> u32 con1, con2;
>>
>> - if (info->version == ADC_V2) {
>> + if (info->version & ADC_V2) {
>> con1 = ADC_V2_CON1_SOFT_RESET;
>> writel(con1, ADC_V2_CON1(info->regs));
>>
>> @@ -300,6 +317,8 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>> writel(1, info->enable_reg);
>>
>> + info->version = exynos_adc_get_version(pdev);
>> +
>> info->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "adc");
>> if (IS_ERR(info->clk)) {
>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed getting clock, err = %ld\n",
>> @@ -308,6 +327,17 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> goto err_irq;
>> }
>>
>> + if (info->version == ADC_V3) {
>> + info->sclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "sclk_tsadc");
>> + if (IS_ERR(info->sclk)) {
>> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
>> + "failed getting sclk clock, err = %ld\n",
>> + PTR_ERR(info->sclk));
>> + ret = PTR_ERR(info->sclk);
>
> nit: you could move this line above dev_warn and use 'ret' in the print
> statement.
As I knew, usually show log meesage and then initialize return value.
But If you find this code ugly, I can fix it.
Thanks for your review.
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
--
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
