On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 05:00:11PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> This adds regulator management to the I2C OF component prober.
> Components that the prober intends to probe likely require their
> regulator supplies be enabled, and GPIOs be toggled to enable them or
> bring them out of reset before they will respond to probe attempts.
> GPIOs will be handled in the next patch.
>
> Without specific knowledge of each component's resource names or
> power sequencing requirements, the prober can only enable the
> regulator supplies all at once, and toggle the GPIOs all at once.
> Luckily, reset pins tend to be active low, while enable pins tend to
> be active high, so setting the raw status of all GPIO pins to high
> should work. The wait time before and after resources are enabled
> are collected from existing drivers and device trees.
>
> The prober collects resources from all possible components and enables
> them together, instead of enabling resources and probing each component
> one by one. The latter approach does not provide any boot time benefits
> over simply enabling each component and letting each driver probe
> sequentially.
>
> The prober will also deduplicate the resources, since on a component
> swap out or co-layout design, the resources are always the same.
> While duplicate regulator supplies won't cause much issue, shared
> GPIOs don't work reliably, especially with other drivers. For the
> same reason, the prober will release the GPIOs before the successfully
> probed component is actually enabled.
...
> +static int i2c_of_probe_get_regulators(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> + struct i2c_of_probe_data *data)
> +{
> + struct regulator_bulk_data *tmp, *new_regulators;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = of_regulator_bulk_get_all(dev, node, &tmp);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + return ret;
> + } else if (ret == 0) {
> + /*
> + * It's entirely possible for a device node to not have
> + * regulator supplies. While it doesn't make sense from
> + * a hardware perspective, the supplies could be always
> + * on or otherwise not modeled in the device tree, but
> + * the device would still work.
> + */
> + return ret;
> + }
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
/*
* It's entirely possible for a device node to not have regulator
* supplies. While it doesn't make sense from a hardware perspective,
* the supplies could be always on or otherwise not modeled in
* the device tree, but the device would still work.
*/
if (ret == 0)
return ret;
> + if (!data->regulators) {
> + data->regulators = tmp;
> + data->regulators_num = ret;
> + return ret;
> + };
> +
> + new_regulators = krealloc_array(data->regulators, (data->regulators_num + ret),
Redundant parentheses.
> + sizeof(*tmp), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!new_regulators) {
> + regulator_bulk_free(ret, tmp);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + data->regulators = new_regulators;
> + memcpy(&data->regulators[data->regulators_num], tmp, sizeof(*tmp) * ret);
Shouldn't be the size calculated based on the size of the destination?
> + data->regulators_num += ret;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
...
As I said earlier my main concern is that timeout heuristic which seems fragile.
But I have no ideas to propose, leave this to others to comment on / think about.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
