Hi Chanwoo,
On 16 April 2014 10:25, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Sachin,
>
> On 04/16/2014 01:44 PM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi Sachin,
>>
>> On 04/16/2014 12:48 PM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>>
>>> On 14 April 2014 14:37, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> This patch control special clock for ADC in Exynos series's FSYS block.
>>>> If special clock of ADC is registerd on clock list of common clk framework,
>>>> Exynos ADC drvier have to control this clock.
>>>>
>>>> Exynos3250/Exynos4/Exynos5 has 'adc' clock as following:
>>>> - 'adc' clock: bus clock for ADC
>>>>
>>>> Exynos3250 has additional 'sclk_tsadc' clock as following:
>>>> - 'sclk_tsadc' clock: special clock for ADC which provide clock to internal ADC
>>>>
>>>> Exynos 4210/4212/4412 and Exynos5250/5420 has not included 'sclk_tsadc' clock
>>>> in FSYS_BLK. But, Exynos3250 based on Cortex-A7 has only included 'sclk_tsadc'
>>>> clock in FSYS_BLK.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi
>>>> Cc: linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>>> index d25b262..3c99243 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
>>>> @@ -40,8 +40,9 @@
>>>> #include <linux/iio/driver.h>
>>>>
>>>> enum adc_version {
>>>> - ADC_V1,
>>>> - ADC_V2
>>>> + ADC_V1 = 0x1,
>>>> + ADC_V2 = 0x2,
>>>> + ADC_V3 = (ADC_V1 | ADC_V2),
>>>
>>> Can't this be simply 0x3? Or is this not really a h/w version?
>>
>> Even thought ADC_V3 isn't h/w revision, ADC_V3 include all featues of ADC_V2
>> and only one difference of clock(sclk_tsadc) from ADC_V2.
>> I want to describethat ADC_V3 include ADC_V2 feature So, I add as following:
>> >> + ADC_V3 = (ADC_V1 | ADC_V2),
>>
>>>
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> /* EXYNOS4412/5250 ADC_V1 registers definitions */
>>>> @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
>>>> void __iomem *regs;
>>>> void __iomem *enable_reg;
>>>> struct clk *clk;
>>>> + struct clk *sclk;
>>>> unsigned int irq;
>>>> struct regulator *vdd;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ struct exynos_adc {
>>>> static const struct of_device_id exynos_adc_match[] = {
>>>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v1", .data = (void *)ADC_V1 },
>>>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2", .data = (void *)ADC_V2 },
>>>> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v3", .data = (void *)ADC_V3 },
>>>> {},
>>>> };
>>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_adc_match);
>>>> @@ -128,7 +131,7 @@ static int exynos_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>>>> mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>>>>
>>>> /* Select the channel to be used and Trigger conversion */
>>>> - if (info->version == ADC_V2) {
>>>> + if (info->version & ADC_V2) {
>>>
>>> So, now this would be applicable for ADC_V3 too, right?
>
> ADC_V3 isn't h/w version. So, I think this code is proper instead of using ADC_V3 direclty.
> I want to use ADC_V3 version on checking clock(sclk_tsadc).
OK. Just a readability concern. Probably a check something like
(version >= ADC_V2) would
have made it more explicit.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> con2 = readl(ADC_V2_CON2(info->regs));
>>>> con2 &= ~ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_MASK;
>>>> con2 |= ADC_V2_CON2_ACH_SEL(chan->address);
>>>> @@ -165,7 +168,7 @@ static irqreturn_t exynos_adc_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>> info->value = readl(ADC_V1_DATX(info->regs)) &
>>>> ADC_DATX_MASK;
>>>> /* clear irq */
>>>> - if (info->version == ADC_V2)
>>>> + if (info->version & ADC_V2)
>>>> writel(1, ADC_V2_INT_ST(info->regs));
>>>> else
>>>> writel(1, ADC_V1_INTCLR(info->regs));
>>>> @@ -226,11 +229,25 @@ static int exynos_adc_remove_devices(struct device *dev, void *c)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static void exynos_adc_enable_clock(struct exynos_adc *info, bool enable)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (enable) {
>>>> + clk_prepare_enable(info->clk);
>>>
>>> This could fail. Is it OK without any checks?
>>
>> OK, I'll check return value.
>
> Do you want to check return value always?
It is a good practice to check the return values for errors. Having
said that it depends on
your s/w design and the h/w requirements. If proceeding with the error
does not cause any
functional issues, then it is OK to ignore them. However I would
atleast prefer to print
a warning/info about such failures.
--
With warm regards,
Sachin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
