On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:43:01AM +0000, Ryan Chen wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 05:28:49PM +0800, Ryan Chen wrote: ... > > > + /* Check 0x14's SDA and SCL status */ > > > + state = readl(i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CC_STS_AND_BUFF); > > > + if (!(state & AST2600_I2CC_SDA_LINE_STS) && (state & > > AST2600_I2CC_SCL_LINE_STS)) { > > > + writel(AST2600_I2CM_RECOVER_CMD_EN, i2c_bus->reg_base + > > AST2600_I2CM_CMD_STS); > > > + r = wait_for_completion_timeout(&i2c_bus->cmd_complete, > > i2c_bus->adap.timeout); > > > + if (r == 0) { > > > + dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "recovery timed out\n"); > > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > > > + } else { > > > + if (i2c_bus->cmd_err) { > > > + dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "recovery error\n"); > > > + ret = -EPROTO; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + } > > > > ret is set but maybe overridden. > > If will modify by following. > if (r == 0) { > dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "recovery timed out\n"); > ret = -ETIMEDOUT; > } else if (i2c_bus->cmd_err) { > dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "recovery error\n"); > ret = -EPROTO; > } > If no error keep ret = 0; It doesn't change the behaviour. Still ret can be overridden below... > > > + /* Recovery done */ > > > > Even if it fails above? > > This will keep check the bus status, if bus busy, will give ret = -EPROTO; > > > > + state = readl(i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CC_STS_AND_BUFF); > > > + if (state & AST2600_I2CC_BUS_BUSY_STS) { > > > + dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "Can't recover bus [%x]\n", state); > > > + ret = -EPROTO; ...here. > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* restore original master/slave setting */ > > > + writel(ctrl, i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CC_FUN_CTRL); > > > + return ret; ... > > > + i2c_bus->master_dma_addr = > > > + dma_map_single(i2c_bus->dev, i2c_bus->master_safe_buf, > > > + msg->len, DMA_TO_DEVICE); > > > > > + if (dma_mapping_error(i2c_bus->dev, i2c_bus->master_dma_addr)) > > { > > > + i2c_put_dma_safe_msg_buf(i2c_bus->master_safe_buf, msg, > > false); > > > + i2c_bus->master_safe_buf = NULL; > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > Why is the dma_mapping_error() returned error code shadowed? > > Sorry, please point me why you are think it is shadowed? > As I know dma_mapping_error() will return 0 or -ENOMEM. So I check if it is !=0. > Than return -ENOMEM. First of all, it is a bad style to rely on the implementation details where it's not crucial. Second, today it may return only ENOMEM, tomorrow it can return a different code or codes. And in general, one should not shadow an error code without justification. > > > + } ... > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ast2600_i2c_bus_of_table); > > > > Why do you need this table before _probe()? Isn't the only user is below? > > It is for next generation table list. Do you suggest remove it? My question was regarding to the location of this table in the code, that's it, no other implications. ... > > > + if (i2c_bus->mode == BUFF_MODE) { > > > + i2c_bus->buf_base = > > devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1, &res); > > > + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(i2c_bus->buf_base)) > > > + i2c_bus->buf_size = resource_size(res) / 2; > > > + else > > > + i2c_bus->mode = BYTE_MODE; > > > > What's wrong with positive conditional? And is it even possible to have NULL > > here? > > > Yes, if dtsi fill not following yaml example have reg 1, that will failure at buffer mode. > And I can swith to byte mode. > > reg = <0x80 0x80>, <0xc00 0x20>; I was asking about if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(...)) line: 1) Why 'if (!foo) {} else {}' instead of 'if (foo) {} else {}'? 2) Why _NULL? > > > + } ... > > > + strscpy(i2c_bus->adap.name, pdev->name, sizeof(i2c_bus->adap.name)); > > > > Use 2-argument strscpy(). > Do you mean strscpy(i2c_bus->adap.name, pdev->name); is acceptable? Yes. And not only acceptable but robust for the copying to the [string] arrays. ... > > > + i2c_bus->alert_enable = device_property_read_bool(dev, "smbus-alert"); > > > + if (i2c_bus->alert_enable) { > > > + i2c_bus->ara = i2c_new_smbus_alert_device(&i2c_bus->adap, > > &i2c_bus->alert_data); > > > + if (!i2c_bus->ara) > > > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to register ARA client\n"); > > > + > > > + writel(AST2600_I2CM_PKT_DONE | AST2600_I2CM_BUS_RECOVER > > | AST2600_I2CM_SMBUS_ALT, > > > + i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CM_IER); > > > + } else { > > > + i2c_bus->alert_enable = false; > > > + /* Set interrupt generation of I2C master controller */ > > > + writel(AST2600_I2CM_PKT_DONE | AST2600_I2CM_BUS_RECOVER, > > > + i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CM_IER); > > > + } > > > > I2C core calls i2c_setup_smbus_alert() when registering the adapter. Why do > > you need to have something special here? > The ast2600 i2c support smbus alert, and according my reference. > If enable alert, that will need i2c_new_smbus_alert_device for alert handler. > When interrupt coming driver can use this hander to up use i2c_handle_smbus_alert > And update layer will handle alert. > Does I mis-understand. If yes, I will remove this in next. Have you seen i2c_new_smbus_alert_device() ? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko