Hello Romain,
On 20/07/2021 19:22:50+0200, Romain Perier wrote:
> From: Daniel Palmer <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
>
> This adds support for the RTC block on the Mstar MSC313e SoCs and newer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Palmer <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
> Co-developed-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 10 ++
> drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/rtc/rtc-msc313.c | 246 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 258 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-msc313.c
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 6c8be735cc91..7e8d1a375e0d 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -2220,6 +2220,7 @@ F: arch/arm/boot/dts/mstar-*
> F: arch/arm/mach-mstar/
> F: drivers/clk/mstar/
> F: drivers/gpio/gpio-msc313.c
> +F: drivers/rtc/rtc-msc313.c
> F: drivers/watchdog/msc313e_wdt.c
> F: include/dt-bindings/clock/mstar-*
> F: include/dt-bindings/gpio/msc313-gpio.h
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
> index 12153d5801ce..67870b422bc5 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
> @@ -1925,4 +1925,14 @@ config RTC_DRV_WILCO_EC
> This can also be built as a module. If so, the module will
> be named "rtc_wilco_ec".
>
> +config RTC_DRV_MSC313
> + tristate "MStar MSC313 RTC"
> + depends on ARCH_MSTARV7
|| COMPILE_TEST maybe ?
> + help
> + If you say yes here you get support for the Mstar MSC313e On-Chip
> + Real Time Clock.
> +
> + This driver can also be built as a module, if so, the module
> + will be called "rtc-msc313".
> +
> endif # RTC_CLASS
> +static int msc313_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> +{
> + struct msc313_rtc *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + u32 seconds;
> + u16 reg;
> +
> + reg = readw(priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> + writew(reg | READ_EN_BIT, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> +
> + /* Wait for HW latch done */
> + while (readw(priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL) & READ_EN_BIT)
> + udelay(1);
> +
> + seconds = readw(priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CNT_VAL_L)
> + | (readw(priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CNT_VAL_H) << 16);
> +
> + rtc_time64_to_tm(seconds, tm);
> +
> + return rtc_valid_tm(tm);
This is not necessary, tm is valid at that point (and the core will
check anyway).
> +}
> +
> +static int msc313_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> +{
> + struct msc313_rtc *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + unsigned long seconds;
> + u16 reg;
> +
> + seconds = rtc_tm_to_time64(tm);
> + writew(seconds & 0xFFFF, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_LOAD_VAL_L);
> + writew((seconds >> 16) & 0xFFFF, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_LOAD_VAL_H);
> + reg = readw(priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> + writew(reg | LOAD_EN_BIT, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> +
> + /* need to check carefully if we want to clear REG_RTC_LOAD_VAL_H for customer*/
> + while (readw(priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL) & LOAD_EN_BIT)
> + udelay(1);
> + writew(0, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_LOAD_VAL_H);
Why is that necessary? The comment is not super useful here.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct rtc_class_ops msc313_rtc_ops = {
> + .read_time = msc313_rtc_read_time,
> + .set_time = msc313_rtc_set_time,
> + .read_alarm = msc313_rtc_read_alarm,
> + .set_alarm = msc313_rtc_set_alarm,
> + .alarm_irq_enable = msc313_rtc_alarm_irq_enable,
> +};
> +
> +static irqreturn_t msc313_rtc_interrupt(s32 irq, void *dev_id)
> +{
> + struct msc313_rtc *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev_id);
> + u16 reg;
> +
> + reg = readw_relaxed(priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> + reg |= INT_CLEAR_BIT;
> + reg &= ~INT_FORCE_BIT;
> + writew_relaxed(reg, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> +
I'm not convinced the _relaxed functions are doing the right thing here.
Also, shouldn't you check the alarm actually fired?
> + rtc_update_irq(priv->rtc_dev, 1, RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF);
> +
> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
> +static int msc313_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct msc313_rtc *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + clk_disable_unprepare(priv->clk);
With a nice devm_add_action_or_reset() in the probe, you can remove the
need for msc313_rtc_remove().
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int msc313_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct msc313_rtc *priv;
> + int ret;
> + int irq;
> + unsigned long rate;
> + u16 reg;
> +
> + priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct msc313_rtc), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!priv)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + priv->rtc_base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->rtc_base))
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->rtc_base);
> +
> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> + if (irq < 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ret = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, msc313_rtc_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED,
> + dev_name(&pdev->dev), &pdev->dev);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Unable to request irq\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + priv->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->clk)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "No input reference clock\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->clk);
> + }
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->clk);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable the reference clock, %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + rate = clk_get_rate(priv->clk);
> +
> + reg = readw(priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> + if (!(reg & SOFT_RSTZ_BIT)) {
> + reg |= SOFT_RSTZ_BIT;
> + writew(reg, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> + }
What is the meaning of this bit? I would think it is better to use that
to know whether the RTC holds the correct time instead of killing the
info here.
> +
> + writew(rate & 0xFFFF, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_FREQ_CW_L);
> + writew((rate >> 16) & 0xFFFF, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_FREQ_CW_H);
> +
> + reg |= CNT_EN_BIT;
> + writew(reg, priv->rtc_base + REG_RTC_CTRL);
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, priv);
> +
> + priv->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(dev, dev_name(dev), &msc313_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->rtc_dev)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to register rtc device\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->rtc_dev);
> + }
Please switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device and devm_rtc_register_device.
Also drop the error message, it is not necessary.
You must also set the RTC range. To help you, you can use:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/rtc-tools.git/tree/rtc-range.c
then you must update the DT bindings as the RTC will support the
start-year property
You must also run rtctest and should include the results.
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
