On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:43:01AM +0000, Ryan Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 05:28:49PM +0800, Ryan Chen wrote:
...
> > > + /* Check 0x14's SDA and SCL status */
> > > + state = readl(i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CC_STS_AND_BUFF);
> > > + if (!(state & AST2600_I2CC_SDA_LINE_STS) && (state &
> > AST2600_I2CC_SCL_LINE_STS)) {
> > > + writel(AST2600_I2CM_RECOVER_CMD_EN, i2c_bus->reg_base +
> > AST2600_I2CM_CMD_STS);
> > > + r = wait_for_completion_timeout(&i2c_bus->cmd_complete,
> > i2c_bus->adap.timeout);
> > > + if (r == 0) {
> > > + dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "recovery timed out\n");
> > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > + } else {
> > > + if (i2c_bus->cmd_err) {
> > > + dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "recovery error\n");
> > > + ret = -EPROTO;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > + }
> >
> > ret is set but maybe overridden.
>
> If will modify by following.
> if (r == 0) {
> dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "recovery timed out\n");
> ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> } else if (i2c_bus->cmd_err) {
> dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "recovery error\n");
> ret = -EPROTO;
> }
> If no error keep ret = 0;
It doesn't change the behaviour. Still ret can be overridden below...
> > > + /* Recovery done */
> >
> > Even if it fails above?
>
> This will keep check the bus status, if bus busy, will give ret = -EPROTO;
>
> > > + state = readl(i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CC_STS_AND_BUFF);
> > > + if (state & AST2600_I2CC_BUS_BUSY_STS) {
> > > + dev_dbg(i2c_bus->dev, "Can't recover bus [%x]\n", state);
> > > + ret = -EPROTO;
...here.
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* restore original master/slave setting */
> > > + writel(ctrl, i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CC_FUN_CTRL);
> > > + return ret;
...
> > > + i2c_bus->master_dma_addr =
> > > + dma_map_single(i2c_bus->dev, i2c_bus->master_safe_buf,
> > > + msg->len, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
> >
> > > + if (dma_mapping_error(i2c_bus->dev, i2c_bus->master_dma_addr))
> > {
> > > + i2c_put_dma_safe_msg_buf(i2c_bus->master_safe_buf, msg,
> > false);
> > > + i2c_bus->master_safe_buf = NULL;
> >
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > Why is the dma_mapping_error() returned error code shadowed?
>
> Sorry, please point me why you are think it is shadowed?
> As I know dma_mapping_error() will return 0 or -ENOMEM. So I check if it is !=0.
> Than return -ENOMEM.
First of all, it is a bad style to rely on the implementation details where
it's not crucial. Second, today it may return only ENOMEM, tomorrow it can
return a different code or codes. And in general, one should not shadow an
error code without justification.
> > > + }
...
> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ast2600_i2c_bus_of_table);
> >
> > Why do you need this table before _probe()? Isn't the only user is below?
>
> It is for next generation table list. Do you suggest remove it?
My question was regarding to the location of this table in the code, that's it,
no other implications.
...
> > > + if (i2c_bus->mode == BUFF_MODE) {
> > > + i2c_bus->buf_base =
> > devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1, &res);
> > > + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(i2c_bus->buf_base))
> > > + i2c_bus->buf_size = resource_size(res) / 2;
> > > + else
> > > + i2c_bus->mode = BYTE_MODE;
> >
> > What's wrong with positive conditional? And is it even possible to have NULL
> > here?
> >
> Yes, if dtsi fill not following yaml example have reg 1, that will failure at buffer mode.
> And I can swith to byte mode.
>
> reg = <0x80 0x80>, <0xc00 0x20>;
I was asking about if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(...)) line:
1) Why 'if (!foo) {} else {}' instead of 'if (foo) {} else {}'?
2) Why _NULL?
> > > + }
...
> > > + strscpy(i2c_bus->adap.name, pdev->name, sizeof(i2c_bus->adap.name));
> >
> > Use 2-argument strscpy().
> Do you mean strscpy(i2c_bus->adap.name, pdev->name); is acceptable?
Yes. And not only acceptable but robust for the copying to the [string] arrays.
...
> > > + i2c_bus->alert_enable = device_property_read_bool(dev, "smbus-alert");
> > > + if (i2c_bus->alert_enable) {
> > > + i2c_bus->ara = i2c_new_smbus_alert_device(&i2c_bus->adap,
> > &i2c_bus->alert_data);
> > > + if (!i2c_bus->ara)
> > > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to register ARA client\n");
> > > +
> > > + writel(AST2600_I2CM_PKT_DONE | AST2600_I2CM_BUS_RECOVER
> > | AST2600_I2CM_SMBUS_ALT,
> > > + i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CM_IER);
> > > + } else {
> > > + i2c_bus->alert_enable = false;
> > > + /* Set interrupt generation of I2C master controller */
> > > + writel(AST2600_I2CM_PKT_DONE | AST2600_I2CM_BUS_RECOVER,
> > > + i2c_bus->reg_base + AST2600_I2CM_IER);
> > > + }
> >
> > I2C core calls i2c_setup_smbus_alert() when registering the adapter. Why do
> > you need to have something special here?
> The ast2600 i2c support smbus alert, and according my reference.
> If enable alert, that will need i2c_new_smbus_alert_device for alert handler.
> When interrupt coming driver can use this hander to up use i2c_handle_smbus_alert
> And update layer will handle alert.
> Does I mis-understand. If yes, I will remove this in next.
Have you seen i2c_new_smbus_alert_device() ?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
