Hi Shawn, On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 12:59:36PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > From: Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This patch adds i2c controller driver for ZTE's zx2967 family. > > Signed-off-by: Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Jun Nie <jun.nie@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx> What about this patch from the old series updating the MAINTAINERS entry? I think it is a good idea? http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/731006/ > --- > drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 9 + > drivers/i2c/busses/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-zx2967.c | 610 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 620 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-zx2967.c > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > index 144cbadc7c72..f9f0ed61df2e 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > @@ -1258,4 +1258,13 @@ config I2C_OPAL > This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module will be > called as i2c-opal. > > +config I2C_ZX2967 > + tristate "ZTE ZX2967 I2C support" > + depends on ARCH_ZX || COMPILE_TEST? > + default y > + help > + Selecting this option will add ZX2967 I2C driver. > + This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module will be > + called i2c-zx2967. > + > endmenu ... > +static int zx2967_i2c_reset_hardware(struct zx2967_i2c_info *zx_i2c) > +{ > + u32 val; > + u32 clk_div; > + u32 status; > + > + val = I2C_MASTER | I2C_IRQ_MSK_ENABLE; > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, val, REG_CMD); > + > + clk_div = clk_get_rate(zx_i2c->clk) / zx_i2c->clk_freq - 1; > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, clk_div, REG_CLK_DIV_FS); > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, clk_div, REG_CLK_DIV_HS); > + > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, I2C_FIFO_MAX - 1, REG_WRCONF); > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, I2C_FIFO_MAX - 1, REG_RDCONF); > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, 1, REG_RDCONF); > + > + zx2967_i2c_flush_fifos(zx_i2c); > + > + status = zx2967_i2c_readl(zx_i2c, REG_STAT); > + if (status & I2C_SR_BUSY) > + return -EBUSY; > + if (status & (I2C_SR_EDEVICE | I2C_SR_EDATA)) > + return -EIO; Is this the error handling (NACK, etc)? Then, it got lost now since we don't reset the hardware anymore after timeouts. But that would have meant that errors are only detected after the timeout was reached instead of instantly? If so, no good design. But maybe I misunderstand. > + > + enable_irq(zx_i2c->irq); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void zx2967_i2c_isr_clr(struct zx2967_i2c_info *zx_i2c) > +{ > + u32 status; > + > + status = zx2967_i2c_readl(zx_i2c, REG_STAT); > + status |= I2C_IRQ_ACK_CLEAR; > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, status, REG_STAT); > +} > + > +static irqreturn_t zx2967_i2c_isr(int irq, void *dev_id) > +{ > + u32 status; > + struct zx2967_i2c_info *zx_i2c = (struct zx2967_i2c_info *)dev_id; > + > + status = zx2967_i2c_readl(zx_i2c, REG_STAT) & I2C_INT_MASK; > + zx2967_i2c_isr_clr(zx_i2c); > + > + if (status & I2C_ERROR_MASK) > + return IRQ_HANDLED; I would have expected the error handling here. > + > + if (status & I2C_TRANS_DONE) > + complete(&zx_i2c->complete); > + > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > +} ... > +static int zx2967_smbus_xfer_read(struct zx2967_i2c_info *zx_i2c, int size, > + union i2c_smbus_data *data) > +{ > + unsigned long time_left; > + u8 buf[2]; > + u32 val; > + > + reinit_completion(&zx_i2c->complete); > + > + val = zx2967_i2c_readl(zx_i2c, REG_CMD); > + val |= I2C_CMB_RW_EN; > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, val, REG_CMD); > + > + val = zx2967_i2c_readl(zx_i2c, REG_CMD); > + val |= I2C_START; > + zx2967_i2c_writel(zx_i2c, val, REG_CMD); > + > + time_left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&zx_i2c->complete, > + I2C_TIMEOUT); > + if (time_left == 0) > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > + > + switch (size) { > + case I2C_SMBUS_BYTE: > + case I2C_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA: > + val = zx2967_i2c_readl(zx_i2c, REG_DATA); > + data->byte = val; > + break; > + case I2C_SMBUS_WORD_DATA: > + case I2C_SMBUS_PROC_CALL: > + buf[0] = zx2967_i2c_readl(zx_i2c, REG_DATA); > + buf[1] = zx2967_i2c_readl(zx_i2c, REG_DATA); > + data->word = (buf[0] << 8) | buf[1]; > + break; > + default: > + dev_warn(DEV(zx_i2c), "Unsupported transaction %d\n", size); I wouldn't print something here. If an unsupported SMBus transfer is used, your driver will fall back to emulate them via I2C. No need to print a warning then. > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +#define ZX2967_I2C_FUNCS (I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_QUICK | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE | \ > + I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WORD_DATA | \ > + I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_PROC_CALL | \ > + I2C_FUNC_I2C | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK) > + > +static u32 zx2967_i2c_func(struct i2c_adapter *adap) > +{ > + return ZX2967_I2C_FUNCS; > +} No strong opinion but I think we can return that value directly without a define. ... > + ret = i2c_add_numbered_adapter(&zx_i2c->adap); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to add zx2967 i2c adapter\n"); Drop the message, the core will do the reporting. > + goto err_clk_unprepare; > + } How was this driver tested BTW? Regards, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
