Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] i2c: Add Actions Semi OWL family S900 I2C driver

[Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Andy,

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 03:14:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
> <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Add Actions Semi OWL family S900 I2C driver.
> 
> > +#include <linux/clk.h>
> > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > +#include <linux/i2c.h>
> > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> 
> > +#include <linux/io.h>
> 
> Perhaps keep in order?
> 

Fixed in next revision.

> > +#define OWL_I2C_DEFAULT_SPEED  100000
> > +#define OWL_I2C_MAX_SPEED      400000
> 
> ..._SPEED -> ..._SPEED_HZ ?
> 
> DEFAULT -> DEF ?
>

Okay.

> > +static int owl_i2c_reset(struct owl_i2c_dev *i2c_dev)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned int val, timeout = 0;
> > +
> > +       owl_i2c_update_reg(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_CTL,
> > +                               OWL_I2C_CTL_EN, false);
> 
> > +       mdelay(1);
> 
> 1 ms keeping CPU busy for nothing. Perhaps usleep_range() / msleep()?
> Is it called in atomic context?
> 

I have removed reset function from the interrupt handler and gave the
justification to my reply to Peter's review.

> > +       owl_i2c_update_reg(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_CTL,
> > +                               OWL_I2C_CTL_EN, true);
> > +
> > +       /* Reset FIFO */
> > +       owl_i2c_update_reg(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_FIFOCTL,
> > +                               OWL_I2C_FIFOCTL_RFR | OWL_I2C_FIFOCTL_TFR,
> > +                               true);
> > +
> > +       /* Wait 50ms for FIFO reset complete */
> > +       do {
> > +               val = readl(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_FIFOCTL);
> > +               if (!(val & (OWL_I2C_FIFOCTL_RFR | OWL_I2C_FIFOCTL_TFR)))
> > +                       break;
> 
> > +               mdelay(1);
> 
> Ditto.
> 

Same as above.

> > +       } while (timeout++ < OWL_I2C_MAX_RETRIES);
> 
> OK, I see you call it from IRQ context. 50ms for IRQ handler is
> inappropriate. (1ms either, but at least not so drastically).
> 

Same as above.

> > +}
> 
> > +static irqreturn_t owl_i2c_interrupt(int irq, void *_dev)
> > +{
> 
> > +       stat = readl(i2c_dev->base + OWL_I2C_REG_STAT);
> > +       if (stat & OWL_I2C_STAT_BEB) {
> > +               dev_dbg(&i2c_dev->adap.dev, "bus error");
> 
> > +               owl_i2c_reset(i2c_dev);
> 
> This is questionable to be here (looking at so loong delays in it).
> 

Same as above.

> > +               goto stop;
> > +       }
> 
> > +       return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
> 
> > +static int owl_i2c_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs,
> > +                               int num)
> > +{
> 
> > +       int ret = 0, idx;
> 
> Redundant assignment.
> 

No. Actually the return path will be fixed in next iteration. Please
see my reply to Peter's review for explanation.

> > +       ret = owl_i2c_hw_init(i2c_dev);
> > +       if (ret)
> > +               return ret;
> 
> > +}
> 
> > +static const struct i2c_algorithm owl_i2c_algorithm = {
> > +       .master_xfer    = owl_i2c_master_xfer,
> 
> > +       .functionality  = owl_i2c_func
> 
> Slightly better to keep comma at the end
> 

Okay.

> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct i2c_adapter_quirks owl_i2c_quirks = {
> > +       .flags          = I2C_AQ_COMB | I2C_AQ_COMB_WRITE_FIRST,
> > +       .max_read_len   = 240,
> > +       .max_write_len  = 240,
> > +       .max_comb_1st_msg_len = 6,
> > +       .max_comb_2nd_msg_len = 240
> 
> Ditto.
> 

Okay.

Thanks,
Mani

> > +};
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html