Am 24.11.2017 um 22:17 schrieb Heiner Kallweit:
> Am 24.11.2017 um 18:35 schrieb Claudiu Beznea:
>>
>>
>> On 24.11.2017 13:00, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> 2017-11-23 22:31 GMT+01:00 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> Am 23.11.2017 um 17:40 schrieb Bartosz Golaszewski:
>>>>> 2017-11-22 22:12 GMT+01:00 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> Add regmap-based read function and instead of using three different
>>>>>> read functions (standard, mac, serial) use just one and factor out the
>>>>>> read offset adjustment for mac and serial to at24_adjust_read_offset.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>> - rebased
>>>>>> v3:
>>>>>> - improve readability
>>>>>> - re-introduce debug message
>>>>>> - introduce at24_adjust_read_offset
>>>>>> v4:
>>>>>> - move offset adjustment calculation to probe function
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>>>>>> index 493e2b646..c16a9a495 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>>>>>> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ struct at24_data {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> unsigned write_max;
>>>>>> unsigned num_addresses;
>>>>>> + unsigned int offset_adj;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct nvmem_config nvmem_config;
>>>>>> struct nvmem_device *nvmem;
>>>>>> @@ -312,6 +313,36 @@ static ssize_t at24_eeprom_read_smbus(struct at24_data *at24, char *buf,
>>>>>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK this looks better. The series is almost ready - just a couple more
>>>>> nits I'd like to see fixed and we're done.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +static ssize_t at24_regmap_read(struct at24_data *at24, char *buf,
>>>>>> + unsigned int offset, size_t count)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + unsigned long timeout, read_time;
>>>>>> + struct at24_client *at24_client;
>>>>>> + struct i2c_client *client;
>>>>>> + struct regmap *regmap;
>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + at24_client = at24_translate_offset(at24, &offset);
>>>>>> + regmap = at24_client->regmap;
>>>>>> + client = at24_client->client;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (count > io_limit)
>>>>>> + count = io_limit;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* adjust offset for mac and serial read ops */
>>>>>> + offset += at24->offset_adj;
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's use '|=' here as it's safer (doesn't shift the bit if it's set
>>>>> in both sides).
>>>>>
>>>> To build an opinion on |= vs. += I checked the code in more detail plus
>>>> some datasheets, what lead to quite some question marks ..
>>>>
>>>> Major issue is that offset and size in at24_read/write are not checked
>>>> currently. So we completely rely on the calling subsystem (nvmem).
>>>> The nvmem sysfs interface does such checking. However nvmem_device_read
>>>> does not. So maybe the nvmem core should be changed to do checking in
>>>> all cases. I add Srinivas as nvmem maintainer to the conversation
>>>> to hear his opinion.
>>>>
>>>> If we have such checks then in general |= and += deliver the same result,
>>>> it's just a question of taste.
>>>>
>>>> According to the at24mac602/at24mac402 datasheet the MAC is provided at:
>>>> 24mac402 / EUI-48 -> position 0x9a - 0x9f
>>>> 24mac602 / EUI-64 -> position 0x98 - 0x9f
>>>>
>>>> Size of the 24mac402 is defined as 48 bit = 6 byte and the effective
>>>> offset in at24_eeprom_read_mac is 0x90 + offset provided by caller.
>> Moreover, if I remember good, in the initialization of the 24mac402 the
>> size is truncated at something which is power of 2. I don't if this is
>> for some historical reasons or not so that you can only read 4 bytes
>> instead of 6 for the EUI-48.
>>
> Very good point! Actually I don't see any real need for this check.
> I thin we lose nothing if we simply remove it.
>
Just see that this check only prints a warning, the actual issue comes
from the ilog2 in AT24_DEVICE_MAGIC.
When we need one more config parameter anyway (for the MAC start address),
then IMO it would make sense to convert the magic to a proper struct.
I'll spend a few thoughts on that.
>>>> So the caller has to provide offset 0x08 to read the mac what is
>>>> greater than the chip size of 6 bytes.
>>>> So reading the mac via nvmem sysfs interface shouldn't be possible.
>>>>
>>>> I saw that you submitted the 24macx02 code, did you test the driver
>>>> with one of these chips and I miss something?
>>>>
>>>
>>> At the time when I submitted the support for at24cs (which I had
>>> tested both for 8- and 16-bit addresses), Wolfram suggested that I
>>> include support for at24mac too, but since I don't have such a chip, I
>>> could not really test it. Looking at the note on page 21 of the
>>> relevant datasheet, it's obvious it can't work. I must have missed
>>> that at the time of writing the code.
>>>
>>> Also: there's this patch[1] which looks like a workaround for this
>>> problem. I'm Cc'ing the author.
>> I tried to make this driver work for chip at [3] which EUI-48 is located at 0xfa
>> and providing this offset via device tree was my first option in order
>> to not broke the initial functionality. Anyway, the device tree approach
>> as not accepted at that time, the usage of another DT binding was proposed
>> to me at that time but I didn't found that feasible, said about it on
>> mailing list but I didn't received any other inputs.
>>
>
> My patch works for the two MAC EEPROM's currently supported by the driver,
> but not for others like the one mentioned by you (Microchip 24AA02E48 and
> friends) because they have other start addresses for the MAC.
>
> To deal with this situation we would have to add the MAC start address to
> the chip config data. In addition the proposed DT parameter would helpful
> in case chips are used which are not yet supported by the driver
> (similar to the recently introduced "size" parameter).
>
>
> Bartosz, can we first go with the additional sanity checking in
> at24_read/write (if fine with you) and my i2c refactoring
> (will resubmit with the last small change)?
> Then the driver is somewhat smaller and simpler what makes further
> improvements easier.
>
> Kind regards,
> Heiner
>
>>>
>>> @Claudiu: is that the case or do you actually have an EEPROM chip with
>>> the MAC at a different offset? Could you by any chance test the
>>> patch[2] from Heiner?
>> I have chip at [3] with MAC at 0xfa.
>>
>> Regarding the testing of patch [2], at this moment I haven't a board
>> with at24mac602 EEPROM. I will come back later to this thread as soon as
>> I will have one. Regarding the changes, if I remember good, the
>> at24->chip.byte_len is truncated at something which is power of 2,
>> in case of 24mac402 will be 4 not 6 as expected, so it should return
>> only 4 LSB bytes of MAC. Other than this it looks OK from my point
>> of view.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Claudiu
>>
>> [3] http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/20002124G.pdf
>>>
>>>> Most likely we would have to change the driver so that the caller can
>>>> read the mac from offset 0.
>>>>
>>>> Rgds, Heiner
>>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bartosz Golaszewski
>>>
>>> [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/785106/
>>> [2] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/840958/
>>>
>>
>
