Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] power: supply: max17040: Config alert SOC low level threshold from FDT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





Em 11/1/19 1:52 PM, Matheus Castello escreveu:


Em 11/1/19 12:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski escreveu:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:41:33PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote:
For configuration of fuel gauge alert for a low level state of charge
interrupt we add a function to config level threshold and a device tree
binding property to set it in flatned device tree node.

Now we can use "maxim,alert-low-soc-level" property with the values from
1% up to 32% to configure alert interrupt threshold.

Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++----
  1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
index 75459f76d02c..802575342c72 100644
--- a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
+++ b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@
  #define MAX17040_DELAY        1000
  #define MAX17040_BATTERY_FULL    95

+#define MAX17040_ATHD_MASK        0xFFC0
+#define MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP    4
+
  struct max17040_chip {
      struct i2c_client        *client;
      struct delayed_work        work;
@@ -43,6 +46,8 @@ struct max17040_chip {
      int soc;
      /* State Of Charge */
      int status;
+    /* Low alert threshold from 32% to 1% of the State of Charge */
+    u32 low_soc_alert_threshold;
  };

  static int max17040_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
@@ -99,6 +104,22 @@ static void max17040_reset(struct i2c_client *client)
      max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_CMD, 0x0054);
  }

+static int max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(struct i2c_client *client,
+    u32 level)
+{
+    int ret;
+    u16 data;
+
+    level = 32 - level;
+    data = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP);
+    /* clear the alrt bit and set LSb 5 bits */
+    data &= MAX17040_ATHD_MASK;
+    data |= level;
+    ret = max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP, data);
+
+    return ret;
+}
+
  static void max17040_get_vcell(struct i2c_client *client)
  {
      struct max17040_chip *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
@@ -115,7 +136,6 @@ static void max17040_get_soc(struct i2c_client *client)
      u16 soc;

      soc = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_SOC);
-
      chip->soc = (soc >> 8);
  }

@@ -161,6 +181,24 @@ static void max17040_get_status(struct i2c_client *client)
          chip->status = POWER_SUPPLY_STATUS_FULL;
  }

+static int max17040_get_of_data(struct max17040_chip *chip)
+{
+    struct device *dev = &chip->client->dev;
+    struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
+    int ret = 0;
+
+    if (of_property_read_u32(np, "maxim,alert-low-soc-level",
+            &chip->low_soc_alert_threshold)) {

Please align the line break with line above. checkpatch --strict might
give you hints about this.
>> +        chip->low_soc_alert_threshold = MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP;
+    /* check if low_soc_alert_threshold is between 1% and 32% */

The comment looks misleading here, like it belongs to previous block.
Maybe put it inside else if {} block?

+    } else if (chip->low_soc_alert_threshold <= 0 ||
+            chip->low_soc_alert_threshold >= 33){

Missing space before {.

+        ret = -EINVAL;
+    }
+
+    return ret;
+}
+
  static void max17040_check_changes(struct i2c_client *client)
  {
      max17040_get_vcell(client);
@@ -192,6 +230,10 @@ static irqreturn_t max17040_thread_handler(int id, void *dev)
      /* send uevent */
      power_supply_changed(chip->battery);

+    /* reset alert bit */
+    max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
+        chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);

Unless the continuation exceeds 80 character limit, please align it with
previous line.

+
      return IRQ_HANDLED;
  }

@@ -216,6 +258,7 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
      struct i2c_adapter *adapter = client->adapter;
      struct power_supply_config psy_cfg = {};
      struct max17040_chip *chip;
+    int ret;

      if (!i2c_check_functionality(adapter, I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE))
          return -EIO;
@@ -226,6 +269,12 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,

      chip->client = client;
      chip->pdata = client->dev.platform_data;
+    ret = max17040_get_of_data(chip);
+    if (ret) {
+        dev_err(&client->dev,
+            "failed: low SOC alert OF data out of bounds\n");
+        return ret;
+    }

      i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
      psy_cfg.drv_data = chip;
@@ -242,20 +291,31 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,

      /* check interrupt */
      if (client->irq) {
-        int ret;
-        unsigned int flags;
-
-        dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
-        flags = IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_ONESHOT;
-        ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq, NULL,
-                        max17040_thread_handler, flags,
-                        chip->battery->desc->name,
-                        chip);
-
-        if (ret) {
-            client->irq = 0;
+        if (of_device_is_compatible(client->dev.of_node,
+            "maxim,max77836-battery")) {

Alignment.

+            ret = max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
+                chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);

Ditto.


I am working to fix the alignments issues using the checkpath strict and I have a doubt. Here for example if I fix the check "Alignment should match open parenthesis" it will pass the 80 characters limit and will show me a warning.

+            if (ret) {
+                dev_err(&client->dev,
+                    "Failed to set low SOC alert: err %d\n",
+                    ret);
+                return ret;
+            }
+
+            dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
+            ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev,
+                client->irq, NULL, max17040_thread_handler,
+                (client->flags | IRQF_ONESHOT),

This looks unrelated. Befor ethis were IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING |
IRQF_ONESHOT, now you use client->flags. There is no reason why this
commit should change >

I am using client->flags here to not overwrite the flag passed in device tree. Let me know what you think about it: if I should leave it as in the previous commit, or should I modify the previous commit too.

+                chip->battery->desc->name, chip);

This breaks alignment which was here before.


The same here.
How to proceed in this case?

Best Regards,
Matheus Castello

Best regards,
Krzysztof



Thanks for the review i will work on it.

+
+            if (ret) {
+                client->irq = 0;
+                dev_warn(&client->dev,
+                    "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
+            }
+        } else {
              dev_warn(&client->dev,
-                "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
+                "Device not compatible for IRQ");
          }
      }

--
2.24.0.rc2




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux