Hi,
On 2/24/21 1:51 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 08:25:35PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 2/23/21 6:22 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> It's better to describe the I²C controller and associated IRQ domain with
>>> fwnode, so they will find their place in the hierarchy in sysfs and also
>>> make easier to debug.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Hans, unfortunately I have no device at hand with INT34D3. This is only compile
>>> tested in that sense. Also I would like to hear if you like the idea in general.
>>>
>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cht-wc.c | 6 ++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cht-wc.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cht-wc.c
>>> index f80d79e973cd..dbf55842b0dc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cht-wc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cht-wc.c
>>> @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static struct bq24190_platform_data bq24190_pdata = {
>>> static int cht_wc_i2c_adap_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> struct intel_soc_pmic *pmic = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
>>> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = dev_fwnode(&pdev->dev);
>>
>> So this will point to the ACPi-companion fwnode of the CHT Whiskey Cove PMIC
>> controller.
>
> Right.
>
>>> struct cht_wc_i2c_adap *adap;
>>> struct i2c_board_info board_info = {
>>> .type = "bq24190",
>>> @@ -333,6 +334,7 @@ static int cht_wc_i2c_adap_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> strlcpy(adap->adapter.name, "PMIC I2C Adapter",
>>> sizeof(adap->adapter.name));
>>> adap->adapter.dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
>>> + set_primary_fwnode(&adap->adapter.dev, fwnode);
>>
>> So now we have the main PMIC device i2c-client, the platform-device instantiated
>> for the MFD-cell for the PMIC's builtin I2C-controller; and the device instantiated
>> for the adapter-device all 3 share the same ACPI-companion fwnode.
>
> Okay, this step in this patch maybe not needed (or should be a separate change,
> but I don't see clearly what would be the benefit out of it).
>
>>> /* Clear and activate i2c-adapter interrupts, disable client IRQ */
>>> adap->old_irq_mask = adap->irq_mask = ~CHT_WC_EXTCHGRIRQ_ADAP_IRQMASK;
>>> @@ -350,8 +352,8 @@ static int cht_wc_i2c_adap_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> /* Alloc and register client IRQ */
>>> - adap->irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(pdev->dev.of_node, 1,
>>> - &irq_domain_simple_ops, NULL);
>>> + adap->irq_domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, 1,
>>> + &irq_domain_simple_ops, NULL);
>>
>> Hmm, not sure this is right, admittedly the old code looks weird too, but now we
>> are creating a second irq_domain at the same level as the irq_domain created for
>> the IRQ-chip part of the PMIC. But this is really more of a child-domain of just
>> the I2C-controller MFD-cell. The IRQ-CHIP part of the PMIC has a single IRQ for the
>> I2C controller which gets raised both on i2c-transfer completions and when the
>> pin on the PMIC which is reserved as input for the IRQ coming out of the charger-chip
>> gets triggered.
>>
>> IOW we have this:
>>
>>
>> PMIC
>> |
>> ------------------------------
>> | | | |
>> IRQ1 IRQ2 IRQ3 I2C-IRQ
>> |
>> ----------------------------------
>> | | | |
>> READIRQ WRIRQ NACKIRQ CLIENT-IRQ
>>
>> Where READIRQ, WRIRQ and NACKIRQ are directly consumed
>> and the CLIENT-IRQ is being represented as a single IRQ on
>> a new irqchip so that we can pass it along to the i2c-driver
>> for the charger-chip which is connected to the Whiskey Cove's
>> builtin I2C controller.
>>
>> But doing as you suggest would model the IRQs as:
>>
>> PMIC
>> |
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> | | | | |
>> IRQ1 IRQ2 IRQ3 I2C-IRQ CLIENT-IRQ
>>
>> Which is not the same really. I guess it is better then what we
>> have though ?
>
> Hmm... There should not be difference in the hierarchy. add_linear ==
> create_linear. The propagation of *device* (not an IRQ) fwnode is just
> convenient way to have IRQ domain be named (instead of 'unknown-N' or so).
> Maybe I have read __irq_domain_add() code wrongly.
Sorry, this is probably my bad. The first ASCII-art which I posted is
how things actually work in HW. The second one is how I assumed that
things would look like in some nested representation of the IRQ-domains
given that all the IRQs mentioned in the ASCII-art now use the same fwnode
as parent for their domain. But poking around in sysfs I don't see any
hierarchical representation of the domains at all. Actually I cannot
find any representation of the IRQ domains inside sysfs (I've never
looked at / into this before) ?
If what you say is right and the fwnode is only used to set a name (where can
I see those names ?) then your patch is probably correct.
> Nevertheless, thinking more about it, why we don't add an IRQ chip via regmap
> IRQ API?
There already is a regmap IRQ chip associated with the MFD device and the
IRQ handling required here is somewhat tricky (see the comments in the driver)
so I would prefer to keep this as is.
>> Note I can test any changes made here, but I'm not 100% convinced that
>> the current version of this patch is correct.
>
> If we settle on the idea first. I'm (slowly) looking forward to check another
> CherryTrail device we have at the lab, but we lack of some (power) equipment
> right now to setup it properly. I hope it may have the Whiskey Cove PMIC there.
More testing is always welcome :) With that said, testing these changes really
is not a lot of work for me.
Regards,
Hans
