Re: [PATCH V2 3/4] regulator: Add a regulator driver for the PM8008 PMIC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2021-10-06 00:05, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Satya Priya (2021-09-30 21:00:58)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/qcom-pm8008-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/qcom-pm8008-regulator.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5dacaa4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/regulator/qcom-pm8008-regulator.c
@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/* Copyright (c) 2021, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved. */
+
+#include <linux/delay.h>

Is this include used?


No will remove.

+#include <linux/device.h>
+#include <linux/interrupt.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/mutex.h>

Is this include used?


No

+#include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/of_device.h>
+#include <linux/of_irq.h>

Is this include used?


No

+#include <linux/pm.h>

Is this include used?


No

+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/regmap.h>
+#include <linux/string.h>

Is this include used? Probably should just be kernel.h?


string.h is not used , will change it as kernel.h

+#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
+#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
+#include <linux/regulator/of_regulator.h>

Is this include used?


Yes it is used. For of_get_regulator_init_data().

+
+#define STARTUP_DELAY_USEC             20
+#define VSET_STEP_MV                   8
+#define VSET_STEP_UV                   (VSET_STEP_MV * 1000)
+
+#define LDO_ENABLE_REG(base)           (base + 0x46)
+#define ENABLE_BIT                     BIT(7)
+
+#define LDO_STATUS1_REG(base)          (base + 0x08)
+#define VREG_READY_BIT                 BIT(7)
+
+#define LDO_VSET_LB_REG(base)          (base + 0x40)
+
+#define LDO_STEPPER_CTL_REG(base)      (base + 0x3b)
+#define STEP_RATE_MASK                 GENMASK(1, 0)
+
+#define PM8008_MAX_LDO                 7

Drop define.

ok.

+
+struct regulator_data {
+       char            *name;

const?


ok

+       char            *supply_name;

const?


ok

+       int             min_uv;
+       int             max_uv;
+       int             min_dropout_uv;
+};
+
+struct pm8008_regulator {
+       struct device           *dev;
+       struct regmap           *regmap;
+       struct regulator_desc   rdesc;
+       struct regulator_dev    *rdev;
+       struct device_node      *of_node;
+       u16                     base;
+       int                     step_rate;
+};
+
+static const struct regulator_data reg_data[PM8008_MAX_LDO] = {

Use [] instead of PM8008_MAX_LDO.


Ok.

+       /* name  parent      min_uv  max_uv  headroom_uv */
+       {"l1", "vdd_l1_l2",  528000, 1504000, 225000},
+       {"l2", "vdd_l1_l2",  528000, 1504000, 225000},
+       {"l3", "vdd_l3_l4", 1504000, 3400000, 200000},
+       {"l4", "vdd_l3_l4", 1504000, 3400000, 200000},
+       {"l5", "vdd_l5",    1504000, 3400000, 300000},
+       {"l6", "vdd_l6",    1504000, 3400000, 300000},
+       {"l7", "vdd_l7",    1504000, 3400000, 300000},

Nitpick: Put a space after { and before } to match kernel style.


Okay.

+};
+
+static int pm8008_read(struct regmap *regmap, u16 reg, u8 *val, int count)
+{
+       int rc;
+
+       rc = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, reg, val, count);
+       if (rc < 0)
+               pr_err("failed to read %#x, rc=%d\n", reg, rc);
+
+       return rc;
+}
+
+static int pm8008_write(struct regmap *regmap, u16 reg, u8 *val, int count)
+{
+       int rc;
+
+ pr_debug("Writing [%*ph] from address %#x\n", count, val, reg);

Don't we already have regmap debugging facilities for this? Why
duplicate it in this driver?

+       rc = regmap_bulk_write(regmap, reg, val, count);
+       if (rc < 0)
+               pr_err("failed to write %#x rc=%d\n", reg, rc);
+
+       return rc;
+}

The above two functions should just be inlined.


I am planning to remove these 2 APIs and use regmap_bulk_read/write directly.

+
+static int pm8008_regulator_get_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
+{
+       struct pm8008_regulator *pm8008_reg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
+       u8 vset_raw[2];
+       int rc;
+
+       rc = pm8008_read(pm8008_reg->regmap,
+                       LDO_VSET_LB_REG(pm8008_reg->base),
+                       vset_raw, 2);

Can this be an __le16 mV?


Below is the diff after changing as per your suggestion, Please correct me if wrong.

-       u8 vset_raw[2];
+       __le16 mV;
        int rc;

-       rc = pm8008_read(pm8008_reg->regmap,
-                       LDO_VSET_LB_REG(pm8008_reg->base),
-                       vset_raw, 2);
+       rc = regmap_bulk_read(pm8008_reg->regmap,
+                       LDO_VSET_LB_REG(pm8008_reg->base), &mV, 2);
        if (rc < 0) {
dev_err(pm8008_reg->dev, "failed to read regulator voltage rc=%d\n", rc);
                return rc;
        }

-       return (vset_raw[1] << 8 | vset_raw[0]) * 1000;
+       return le16_to_cpu(mV) * 1000;

+       if (rc < 0) {
+ dev_err(pm8008_reg->dev, "failed to read regulator voltage rc=%d\n", rc);
+               return rc;
+       }
+
+       return (vset_raw[1] << 8 | vset_raw[0]) * 1000;

And then return le16_to_cpu(mV) * 1000;


+}
+
+static inline int pm8008_write_voltage(struct pm8008_regulator *pm8008_reg, int min_uv,
+                               int max_uv)
+{
+       int rc = 0, mv;
+       u8 vset_raw[2];
+
+       mv = DIV_ROUND_UP(min_uv, 1000);
+
+       /*
+        * Each LSB of regulator is 1mV and the voltage setpoint
+        * should be multiple of 8mV(step).
+        */
+       mv = DIV_ROUND_UP(mv, VSET_STEP_MV) * VSET_STEP_MV;
+       if (mv * 1000 > max_uv) {
+               dev_err(pm8008_reg->dev,
+ "requested voltage (%d uV) above maximum limit (%d uV)\n",
+                               mv*1000, max_uv);
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }
+
+       vset_raw[0] = mv & 0xff;
+       vset_raw[1] = (mv & 0xff00) >> 8;

Make vset_raw a u16?

	vset = mv;

And then use cpu_to_le16() below?


Below is the diff:

-       int rc = 0, mv;
-       u8 vset_raw[2];
+       int rc, mv;
+       u16 vset_raw;
        [...]
-       vset_raw[0] = mv & 0xff;
-       vset_raw[1] = (mv & 0xff00) >> 8;
- rc = pm8008_write(pm8008_reg->regmap, LDO_VSET_LB_REG(pm8008_reg->base),
-                       vset_raw, 2);
+       vset_raw = cpu_to_le16(mv);
+
+       rc = regmap_bulk_write(pm8008_reg->regmap,
+                       LDO_VSET_LB_REG(pm8008_reg->base), &vset_raw,
+                       sizeof(vset_raw));


+ rc = pm8008_write(pm8008_reg->regmap, LDO_VSET_LB_REG(pm8008_reg->base),
+                       vset_raw, 2);

regmap_bulk_write(pm8008_reg->regmap, LDO_VSET_LB_REG(pm8008_reg->base),
			  cpu_to_le16(vset), sizeof(vset));

does it work?


It is working fine after modifying as above.

+       if (rc < 0) {
+ dev_err(pm8008_reg->dev, "failed to write voltage rc=%d\n", rc);
+               return rc;
+       }
+
+       return 0;
+}
+
+static int pm8008_regulator_set_voltage_time(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
+                               int old_uV, int new_uv)
+{
+       struct pm8008_regulator *pm8008_reg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
+
+ return DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(new_uv - old_uV), pm8008_reg->step_rate);
+}
+
+static int pm8008_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
+ int min_uv, int max_uv, unsigned int *selector)
+{
+       struct pm8008_regulator *pm8008_reg = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev);
+       int rc;
+
+       rc = pm8008_write_voltage(pm8008_reg, min_uv, max_uv);
+       if (rc < 0)
+               return rc;
+
+       *selector = DIV_ROUND_UP(min_uv - pm8008_reg->rdesc.min_uV,
+                               VSET_STEP_UV);
+
+       dev_dbg(pm8008_reg->dev, "voltage set to %d\n", min_uv);
+       return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct regulator_ops pm8008_regulator_ops = {
+       .enable         = regulator_enable_regmap,

Weird tabbing.


Will correct it.

+       .disable                = regulator_disable_regmap,
+       .is_enabled             = regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
+       .set_voltage            = pm8008_regulator_set_voltage,
+       .get_voltage            = pm8008_regulator_get_voltage,
+       .list_voltage           = regulator_list_voltage_linear,
+       .set_voltage_time       = pm8008_regulator_set_voltage_time,
+};
+
+static int pm8008_register_ldo(struct pm8008_regulator *pm8008_reg,
+                                               const char *name)
+{
+       struct regulator_config reg_config = {};
+       struct regulator_init_data *init_data;
+       struct device *dev = pm8008_reg->dev;
+       struct device_node *reg_node = pm8008_reg->of_node;
+       int rc, i;
+       u32 base = 0;
+       u8 reg;
+
+       /* get regulator data */
+       for (i = 0; i < PM8008_MAX_LDO; i++)

Use ARRAY_SIZE()

Ok.


+               if (strstr(name, reg_data[i].name))
+                       break;
+
+       if (i == PM8008_MAX_LDO) {
+               dev_err(dev, "Invalid regulator name %s\n", name);
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }
+
+       rc = of_property_read_u32(reg_node, "reg", &base);
+       if (rc < 0) {
+ dev_err(dev, "%s: failed to get regulator base rc=%d\n", name, rc);
+               return rc;
+       }
+       pm8008_reg->base = base;
+
+       /* get slew rate */
+       rc = pm8008_read(pm8008_reg->regmap,
+ LDO_STEPPER_CTL_REG(pm8008_reg->base), &reg, 1);
+       if (rc < 0) {
+ dev_err(dev, "%s: failed to read step rate configuration rc=%d\n",
+                               name, rc);
+               return rc;
+       }
+       pm8008_reg->step_rate = 38400 >> (reg & STEP_RATE_MASK);

Where does 38400 come from? Is that a frequency?


It is the default voltage step rate. I'll add a macro DEFAULT_VOLTAGE_STEP_RATE for this to be clear.

+
+       init_data = of_get_regulator_init_data(dev, reg_node,
+                                               &pm8008_reg->rdesc);
+       if (init_data == NULL) {

	if (!init_data)

is more kernel style.

Okay.


+ dev_err(dev, "%s: failed to get regulator data\n", name);
+               return -ENODATA;
+       }
+
+ init_data->constraints.input_uV = init_data->constraints.max_uV;
+       reg_config.dev = dev;
+       reg_config.init_data = init_data;
+       reg_config.driver_data = pm8008_reg;
+       reg_config.of_node = reg_node;
+
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE;
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.ops = &pm8008_regulator_ops;
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.name = init_data->constraints.name;
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.supply_name = reg_data[i].supply_name;
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.uV_step = VSET_STEP_UV;
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.min_uV = reg_data[i].min_uv;
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.n_voltages
+               = ((reg_data[i].max_uv - reg_data[i].min_uv)
+                       / pm8008_reg->rdesc.uV_step) + 1;
+
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.enable_reg = LDO_ENABLE_REG(base);
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.enable_mask = ENABLE_BIT;
+       pm8008_reg->rdesc.min_dropout_uV = reg_data[i].min_dropout_uv;
+       of_property_read_u32(reg_node, "qcom,min-dropout-voltage",
+                            &pm8008_reg->rdesc.min_dropout_uV);

Why do we allow DT to override this? Isn't it a property of the hardware
that doesn't change? So the driver can hardcode the knowledge about the
dropout.


The headroom values change with targets. We are adding some default headroom values in the driver and later overwriting them with the actual values specified in the DT.

+
+ pm8008_reg->rdev = devm_regulator_register(dev, &pm8008_reg->rdesc,

Is this assignment ever used? Seems like it would be better to merely

	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(devm_regulator_register(dev, ...));


Okay.

+                                               &reg_config);
+       if (IS_ERR(pm8008_reg->rdev)) {
+               rc = PTR_ERR(pm8008_reg->rdev);
+ dev_err(dev, "%s: failed to register regulator rc=%d\n",
+                               pm8008_reg->rdesc.name, rc);
+               return rc;
+       }
+
+       dev_dbg(dev, "%s regulator registered\n", name);
+
+       return 0;
+}
+
+static int pm8008_parse_regulator(struct regmap *regmap, struct device *dev)
+{
+       int rc = 0;

Drop initialization.


Okay.

+       const char *name;
+       struct device_node *child;
+       struct pm8008_regulator *pm8008_reg;
+
+ /* parse each subnode and register regulator for regulator child */
+       for_each_available_child_of_node(dev->of_node, child) {
+ pm8008_reg = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pm8008_reg), GFP_KERNEL);
+
+               pm8008_reg->regmap = regmap;
+               pm8008_reg->of_node = child;
+               pm8008_reg->dev = dev;
+
+ rc = of_property_read_string(child, "regulator-name", &name);
+               if (rc)
+                       continue;
+
+               rc = pm8008_register_ldo(pm8008_reg, name);

Can we use the of_parse_cb similar to qcom_spmi-regulator.c?


Are you suggesting to remove the pm8008_register_ldo API and add its contents in probe itself and then use of_parse_cb callback like in qcom_spmi-regulator.c?

Do we have any advantage using that here? Also I am not exactly sure what all contents to put in that. Seems like we can put the step rate and min-dropout-voltage configurations in there.

+               if (rc < 0) {
+ dev_err(dev, "failed to register regulator %s rc=%d\n",
+                                       name, rc);
+                       return rc;
+               }
+       }
+
+       return 0;
+}
+
+static int pm8008_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+       int rc = 0;

Please don't initialize locals and then overwrite them before testing
them.

+       struct regmap *regmap;
+
+       regmap = dev_get_regmap(pdev->dev.parent, NULL);
+       if (!regmap) {
+               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "parent regmap is missing\n");
+               return -EINVAL;
+       }
+
+       rc = pm8008_parse_regulator(regmap, &pdev->dev);

Just inline this code. It's basically the entire probe function so
splitting it away to yet another function just makes it harder to read.


Okay.

+       if (rc < 0) {
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to parse device tree rc=%d\n", rc);
+               return rc;
+       }
+
+       return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct of_device_id pm8008_regulator_match_table[] = {
+       { .compatible = "qcom,pm8008-regulator", },
+       { },

Nitpick: Drop comma on sentinel so nothing can come after without
causing a compilation error.


Okay

+};

Add a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE please. Same comment applies to the mfd
driver.


Okay

+
+static struct platform_driver pm8008_regulator_driver = {
+       .driver = {
+               .name           = "qcom,pm8008-regulator",
+               .of_match_table = pm8008_regulator_match_table,
+       },
+       .probe          = pm8008_regulator_probe,

I have no idea what's going on with this tabbing.

+};
+
+module_platform_driver(pm8008_regulator_driver);
+



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux