Thanks Bjorn for review comments.
On 08/11/16 19:07, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Tue 08 Nov 08:29 PST 2016, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
This patch adds support to PM8821 PMIC and interrupt support.
PM8821 is companion device that supplements primary PMIC PM8921 IC.
Linus Walleij has a patch out for renaming a lot of things in this file,
so we should probably make sure that lands and then rebase this ontop.
Yep, Will rebase on top of it.
Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Tested this patch for MPP and IRQ functionality on IFC6410 and SD600 EVAL
board with mpps PM8821 and PM8921.
.../devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.txt | 1 +
drivers/mfd/pm8921-core.c | 368 +++++++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 340 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.txt
index 37a088f..8f1b4ec 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.txt
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ voltages and other various functionality to Qualcomm SoCs.
Definition: must be one of:
"qcom,pm8058"
"qcom,pm8921"
+ "qcom,pm8821"
- #address-cells:
Usage: required
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/pm8921-core.c b/drivers/mfd/pm8921-core.c
index 0e3a2ea..28c2470 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/pm8921-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/pm8921-core.c
@@ -28,16 +28,26 @@
#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE 0x1BB
-
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_ROOT (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 0)
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_M_STATUS1 (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 1)
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_M_STATUS2 (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 2)
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_M_STATUS3 (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 3)
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_M_STATUS4 (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 4)
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BLK_SEL (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 5)
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_IT_STATUS (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 6)
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_CONFIG (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 7)
-#define SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_RT_STATUS (SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE + 8)
Keep these (per argumentation that follows), but try to name them
appropriately.
Yes, I agree, I will address all the comments related to register
defines in next version.
...
#define PM_IRQF_LVL_SEL 0x01 /* level select */
#define PM_IRQF_MASK_FE 0x02 /* mask falling edge */
@@ -54,30 +64,41 @@
#define REG_HWREV_2 0x0E8 /* PMIC4 revision 2 */
#define PM8921_NR_IRQS 256
+#define PM8821_NR_IRQS 112
struct pm_irq_chip {
struct regmap *regmap;
spinlock_t pm_irq_lock;
struct irq_domain *irqdomain;
+ unsigned int irq_reg_base;
unsigned int num_irqs;
unsigned int num_blocks;
unsigned int num_masters;
u8 config[0];
};
+struct pm8xxx_data {
+ int num_irqs;
+ unsigned int irq_reg_base;
As far as I can see this is always SSBI_PM8821_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE in the
8821 functions and SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BASE in the pm8xxx functions. If
you have disjunct code paths I think it's better to not obscure this
with a variable.
Try renaming the constants appropriately instead. This also has the
benefit of reducing the size of the patch slightly.
Yep, will remove reg_base variable.
...
+static int pm8821_read_master_irq(const struct pm_irq_chip *chip,
+ int m, unsigned int *master)
+{
I think you should inline this, as you already have the calls unrolled
in pm8821_irq_handler().
We can just call regmap_read directly from the caller function, and get
rid of this function all together.
+ unsigned int base;
+
+ if (!m)
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER0;
+ else
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER1;
+
+ return regmap_read(chip->regmap, base, master);
+}
+
+static int pm8821_read_block_irq(struct pm_irq_chip *chip, int master,
+ u8 block, unsigned int *bits)
+{
+ int rc;
+
+ unsigned int base;
Odd empty line between rc and base. (And btw, sorting your local
variables in descending length make things pretty).
Yep, will fix it in next version.
+
+ if (!master)
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER0;
+ else
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER1;
+
+ spin_lock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
The reason why this is done under a lock in the other case is because
the status register is paged, so you shouldn't need it here.
Thanks for the info, will remove it.
With this updated I think you can favorably inline this into
pm8821_irq_block_handler().
+
+ rc = regmap_read(chip->regmap, base + block, bits);
+ if (rc)
+ pr_err("Failed Reading Status rc=%d\n", rc);
+
+ spin_unlock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
+ return rc;
+}
+
+static int pm8821_irq_block_handler(struct pm_irq_chip *chip,
+ int master_number, int block)
+{
+ int pmirq, irq, i, ret;
+ unsigned int bits;
+
+ ret = pm8821_read_block_irq(chip, master_number, block, &bits);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("Failed reading %d block ret=%d", block, ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ if (!bits) {
+ pr_err("block bit set in master but no irqs: %d", block);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ /* Convert block offset to global block number */
+ block += (master_number * PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER) - 1;
So this is block -= 1 for master 0 and block += 6 for master 1, is the
latter correct?
Yes, both of them are correct.
for master 0 which has block numbers from 1-7 should translate to 0-6 in
linear space.
for master 1 which has block numbers from 1-7 should translate to 7-13
in linear space.
so for master0 it is -=1 and and for master1 it is +=6 seems correct.
+
+ /* Check IRQ bits */
+ for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
+ if (bits & BIT(i)) {
+ pmirq = block * 8 + i;
+ irq = irq_find_mapping(chip->irqdomain, pmirq);
+ generic_handle_irq(irq);
+ }
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int pm8821_irq_read_master(struct pm_irq_chip *chip,
+ int master_number, u8 master_val)
This isn't so much a matter of "reading master X" as "handle master X".
Agreed, it would be more consistent with pm8xxx too.
Also, you don't care about the return value, so no need to return one...
Yep will fix it.
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+ int block;
+
+ for (block = 1; block < 8; block++) {
+ if (master_val & BIT(block)) {
+ ret |= pm8821_irq_block_handler(chip,
+ master_number, block);
+ }
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static void pm8821_irq_handler(struct irq_desc *desc)
+{
+ struct pm_irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
+ struct irq_chip *irq_chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
+ int ret;
+ unsigned int master;
+
+ chained_irq_enter(irq_chip, desc);
+ /* check master 0 */
+ ret = pm8821_read_master_irq(chip, 0, &master);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("Failed to re:Qad master 0 ret=%d\n", ret);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (master & ~PM8821_IRQ_MASTER1_SET)
Rather than having a define for MASTER1_SET use BIT(0) here and write a
comment like:
Yep, I will add some comments in this area.
"bits 1 through 7 marks the first 7 blocks"
+ pm8821_irq_read_master(chip, 0, master);
+
and then
"bit 0 is set if second master contains any bits"
Or just skip this optimization and check the two masters unconditionally
in a loop.
+ /* check master 1 */
+ if (!(master & PM8821_IRQ_MASTER1_SET))
+ goto done;
+
+ ret = pm8821_read_master_irq(chip, 1, &master);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("Failed to read master 1 ret=%d\n", ret);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ pm8821_irq_read_master(chip, 1, master);
+
+done:
+ chained_irq_exit(irq_chip, desc);
+}
+
static void pm8xxx_irq_mask_ack(struct irq_data *d)
{
struct pm_irq_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
@@ -254,13 +394,15 @@ static int pm8xxx_irq_get_irqchip_state(struct irq_data *d,
irq_bit = pmirq % 8;
spin_lock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
- rc = regmap_write(chip->regmap, SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BLK_SEL, block);
+ rc = regmap_write(chip->regmap, chip->irq_reg_base +
+ SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BLK_SEL, block);
if (rc) {
pr_err("Failed Selecting Block %d rc=%d\n", block, rc);
goto bail;
}
- rc = regmap_read(chip->regmap, SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_RT_STATUS, &bits);
+ rc = regmap_read(chip->regmap, chip->irq_reg_base +
+ SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_RT_STATUS, &bits);
if (rc) {
pr_err("Failed Reading Status rc=%d\n", rc);
goto bail;
@@ -299,6 +441,151 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops pm8xxx_irq_domain_ops = {
.map = pm8xxx_irq_domain_map,
};
+static void pm8821_irq_mask_ack(struct irq_data *d)
+{
+ struct pm_irq_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ unsigned int base, pmirq = irqd_to_hwirq(d);
+ u8 block, master;
+ int irq_bit, rc;
+
+ block = pmirq / 8;
+ master = block / PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER;
+ irq_bit = pmirq % 8;
+ block %= PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER;
You can deobfuscate this somewhat by instead of testing for !master
below you just do:
if (block < PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER) {
base =
} else {
base =
block -= PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER;
}
Done some cleanup in register defines which avoids this totally.
+
+ if (!master)
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER0;
+ else
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER1;
+
+ spin_lock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
The irqchip code grabs a lock on the irq_desc, so this can't race with
unmask - and the regmap_update_bits() is internally protecting the
read/write cycle.
So you shouldn't need to lock around this section.
Yep.
+ rc = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
+ base + PM8821_IRQ_MASK_REG_OFFSET + block,
+ BIT(irq_bit), BIT(irq_bit));
+
+ if (rc) {
+ pr_err("Failed to read/write mask IRQ:%d rc=%d\n", pmirq, rc);
+ goto fail;
+ }
+
+ rc = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
+ base + PM8821_IRQ_CLEAR_OFFSET + block,
+ BIT(irq_bit), BIT(irq_bit));
+
+ if (rc) {
+ pr_err("Failed to read/write IT_CLEAR IRQ:%d rc=%d\n",
+ pmirq, rc);
+ }
+
+fail:
+ spin_unlock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
+}
+
+static void pm8821_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
+{
+ struct pm_irq_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ unsigned int base, pmirq = irqd_to_hwirq(d);
+ int irq_bit, rc;
+ u8 block, master;
+
+ block = pmirq / 8;
+ master = block / PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER;
+ irq_bit = pmirq % 8;
+ block %= PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER;
As mask().
+
+ if (!master)
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER0;
+ else
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER1;
+
+ spin_lock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
As mask().
+
+ rc = regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap,
+ base + PM8821_IRQ_MASK_REG_OFFSET + block,
+ BIT(irq_bit), ~BIT(irq_bit));
+
+ if (rc)
+ pr_err("Failed to read/write unmask IRQ:%d rc=%d\n", pmirq, rc);
+
+ spin_unlock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
+}
+
+static int pm8821_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int flow_type)
+{
+
+ /*
+ * PM8821 IRQ controller does not have explicit software support for
+ * IRQ flow type.
+ */
Is returning "success" here the right thing to do? Shouldn't we just
omit the function? Or did you perhaps hit some clients that wouldn't
deal with that?
Will remove this totally.
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int pm8821_irq_get_irqchip_state(struct irq_data *d,
+ enum irqchip_irq_state which,
+ bool *state)
+{
+ struct pm_irq_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ int pmirq, rc;
+ u8 block, irq_bit, master;
+ unsigned int bits;
+ unsigned int base;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ pmirq = irqd_to_hwirq(d);
+
+ block = pmirq / 8;
+ master = block / PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER;
+ irq_bit = pmirq % 8;
+ block %= PM8821_BLOCKS_PER_MASTER;
+
Simplify as in mask().
taken care by new register defines.
+ if (!master)
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER0;
+ else
+ base = chip->irq_reg_base + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_MASTER1;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&chip->pm_irq_lock, flags);
No need to lock here as we're just reading a single register.
yep done.
+
+ rc = regmap_read(chip->regmap,
+ base + PM8821_IRQ_RT_STATUS_OFFSET + block, &bits);
+ if (rc) {
+ pr_err("Failed Reading Status rc=%d\n", rc);
+ goto bail_out;
+ }
+
+ *state = !!(bits & BIT(irq_bit));
+
+bail_out:
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chip->pm_irq_lock, flags);
+
+ return rc;
+}
+
+static struct irq_chip pm8821_irq_chip = {
+ .name = "pm8821",
+ .irq_mask_ack = pm8821_irq_mask_ack,
+ .irq_unmask = pm8821_irq_unmask,
+ .irq_set_type = pm8821_irq_set_type,
+ .irq_get_irqchip_state = pm8821_irq_get_irqchip_state,
+ .flags = IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND | IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE,
+};
+
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
