On Fri, 16 Sep 2022, Kavyasree Kotagiri wrote:
> LAN966x SoC have 5 flexcoms. Each flexcom has 2 chip-selects
> which are optional I/O lines. For each chip select of each
> flexcom there is a configuration register FLEXCOM_SHARED[0-4]:SS_MASK[0-1].
> The width of configuration register is 21 because there are
> 21 shared pins on each of which the chip select can be mapped.
> Each bit of the register represents a different FLEXCOM_SHARED pin.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kavyasree Kotagiri <kavyasree.kotagiri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v8 -> v9:
> - No changes.
>
> v7 -> v8:
> - Changed compatible string to microchip,lan9668-flexcom.
>
> v6 -> v7:
> - No changes.
>
> v5 -> v6:
> - No changes.
>
> v4 -> v5:
> - No changes.
>
> v3 -> v4:
> - Add condition for a flexcom whether to configure chip-select lines
> or not, based on "microchip,flx-shrd-pins" property existence because
> chip-select lines are optional.
>
> v2 -> v3:
> - used goto label for clk_disable in error cases.
>
> v1 -> v2:
> - use GENMASK for mask, macros for maximum allowed values.
> - use u32 values for flexcom chipselects instead of strings.
> - disable clock in case of errors.
>
> drivers/mfd/atmel-flexcom.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/atmel-flexcom.c b/drivers/mfd/atmel-flexcom.c
> index 33caa4fba6af..92ea15d5fd72 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/atmel-flexcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/atmel-flexcom.c
> @@ -28,15 +28,68 @@
> #define FLEX_MR_OPMODE(opmode) (((opmode) << FLEX_MR_OPMODE_OFFSET) & \
> FLEX_MR_OPMODE_MASK)
>
> +/* LAN966x flexcom shared register offsets */
> +#define FLEX_SHRD_SS_MASK_0 0x0
MASK_0 isn't very forthcoming. What *is* MASK_0 the mask of?
> +#define FLEX_SHRD_SS_MASK_1 0x4
What is SS?
> +#define FLEX_SHRD_PIN_MAX 20
> +#define FLEX_CS_MAX 1
> +#define FLEX_SHRD_MASK GENMASK(20, 0)
> +
> struct atmel_flexcom {
> void __iomem *base;
> + void __iomem *flexcom_shared_base;
> u32 opmode;
> struct clk *clk;
> };
>
> +static int atmel_flexcom_lan966x_cs_config(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct atmel_flexcom *ddata = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + u32 flx_shrd_pins[2], flx_cs[2], val;
> + int err, i, count;
> +
> + count = of_property_count_u32_elems(np, "microchip,flx-shrd-pins");
> + if (count <= 0 || count > 2) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid %s property (%d)\n", "flx-shrd-pins",
Sure, but how about telling the user why it's invalid.
> + count);
Why the '\n' here? It's not consistent with the rest of the code.
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + err = of_property_read_u32_array(np, "microchip,flx-shrd-pins", flx_shrd_pins, count);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + err = of_property_read_u32_array(np, "microchip,flx-cs", flx_cs, count);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> + if (flx_shrd_pins[i] > FLEX_SHRD_PIN_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (flx_cs[i] > FLEX_CS_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + val = ~(1 << flx_shrd_pins[i]) & FLEX_SHRD_MASK;
BIT()?
> + if (flx_cs[i] == 0)
Please define the magic '0'.
> + writel(val, ddata->flexcom_shared_base + FLEX_SHRD_SS_MASK_0);
> + else
> + writel(val, ddata->flexcom_shared_base + FLEX_SHRD_SS_MASK_1);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int atmel_flexcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + const struct atmel_flex_caps *caps;
> struct resource *res;
> struct atmel_flexcom *ddata;
> int err;
> @@ -76,13 +129,52 @@ static int atmel_flexcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> */
> writel(FLEX_MR_OPMODE(ddata->opmode), ddata->base + FLEX_MR);
>
> + caps = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> + if (!caps) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Could not retrieve flexcom caps\n");
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto clk_disable;
> + }
> +
> + if (caps->has_flx_cs && of_property_read_bool(np, "microchip,flx-shrd-pins")) {
Is using an array of ints as a bool valid / good practise?
> + ddata->flexcom_shared_base = devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1, NULL);
Can the magic '1' be defined?
> + if (IS_ERR(ddata->flexcom_shared_base)) {
> + err = dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev,
> + PTR_ERR(ddata->flexcom_shared_base),
> + "failed to get flexcom shared base address\n");
> + goto clk_disable;
> + }
> +
> + err = atmel_flexcom_lan966x_cs_config(pdev);
> + if (err)
> + goto clk_disable;
> + }
All of this new code looks like it's related to the CS logic.
If that's the case, why not encapsulate it all into
atmel_flexcom_lan966x_cs_config()?
> +clk_disable:
> clk_disable_unprepare(ddata->clk);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
>
> return devm_of_platform_populate(&pdev->dev);
> }
> +struct atmel_flex_caps {
> + bool has_flx_cs;
> +};
> +
> +static const struct atmel_flex_caps atmel_flexcom_caps = {};
> +
> +static const struct atmel_flex_caps lan966x_flexcom_caps = {
> + .has_flx_cs = true,
> +};
> +
> static const struct of_device_id atmel_flexcom_of_match[] = {
> - { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-flexcom" },
> + {
> + .compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-flexcom",
> + .data = &atmel_flexcom_caps,
> + },
> +
> + {
> + .compatible = "microchip,lan9668-flexcom",
> + .data = &lan966x_flexcom_caps,
> + },
> +
This a lot of infrastructure for no clear gain. Why can't we use the
caps if they are present and ignore them if they're not? That would
simplify a great deal of this.
> { /* sentinel */ }
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, atmel_flexcom_of_match);
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
