On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 03:24:01PM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Eduardo Valentin >> <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > This patch introduces a MFD core device driver for >> > OMAP system control module. >> > >> > The control module allows software control of >> > various static modes supported by the device. It is >> > composed of two control submodules: general control >> > module and device (padconfiguration) control >> > module. >> > >> > In this patch, the children defined are for: >> > . USB-phy pin control >> > . Bangap temperature sensor >> > >> > Device driver is probed with postcore_initcall. >> > However, as some of the APIs exposed by this driver >> > may be needed in very early init phase, an early init >> > class is also available: "early_omap_control". >> > >> > Signed-off-by: J Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxx> >> > --- >> >> [..] >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/Kconfig b/arch/arm/plat-omap/Kconfig >> > index ad95c7a..222dbad 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/Kconfig >> > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/Kconfig >> > @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ menu "TI OMAP Common Features" >> > config ARCH_OMAP_OTG >> > bool >> > >> > +config ARCH_HAS_CONTROL_MODULE >> > + bool >> > + >> Thanks for getting rid of OMAP CONFIG here. > > OK. ARCH_HAS_CONTROL_MODULE is a bit too generic though.. > >> >> > choice >> > prompt "OMAP System Type" >> > default ARCH_OMAP2PLUS >> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> > index 11e4438..25a66d8 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig >> > @@ -795,6 +795,15 @@ config MFD_WL1273_CORE >> > driver connects the radio-wl1273 V4L2 module and the wl1273 >> > audio codec. >> > >> > +config MFD_OMAP_CONTROL >> > + bool "Texas Instruments OMAP System control module" >> > + depends on ARCH_HAS_CONTROL_MODULE >> > + help >> > + This is the core driver for system control module. This driver >> > + is responsible for creating the control module mfd child, >> > + like USB-pin control, pin muxing, MMC-pbias and DDR IO dynamic >> > + change for off mode. >> > + >> > config MFD_OMAP_USB_HOST >> > bool "Support OMAP USBHS core driver" >> > depends on USB_EHCI_HCD_OMAP || USB_OHCI_HCD_OMAP3 >> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Makefile b/drivers/mfd/Makefile >> > index 05fa538..00f99d6 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/mfd/Makefile >> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Makefile >> > @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_TPS6586X) += tps6586x.o >> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_VX855) += vx855.o >> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_WL1273_CORE) += wl1273-core.o >> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_CS5535) += cs5535-mfd.o >> > +obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_OMAP_CONTROL) += omap-control-core.o >> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_OMAP_USB_HOST) += omap-usb-host.o >> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_PM8921_CORE) += pm8921-core.o >> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_PM8XXX_IRQ) += pm8xxx-irq.o >> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/omap-control-core.c b/drivers/mfd/omap-control-core.c >> > new file mode 100644 >> > index 0000000..7d8d408 >> > --- /dev/null >> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/omap-control-core.c >> > @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ >> > +/* >> > + * OMAP system control module driver file >> > + * >> > + * Copyright (C) 2011-2012 Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com/ >> > + * Contacts: >> > + * Based on original code written by: >> > + * J Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> >> > + * Moiz Sonasath <m-sonasath@xxxxxx> >> > + * MFD clean up and re-factoring: >> > + * Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@xxxxxx> >> > + * >> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or >> > + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License >> > + * version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation. >> > + * >> > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but >> > + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of >> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU >> > + * General Public License for more details. >> > + * >> > + */ >> > + >> > +#include <linux/module.h> >> > +#include <linux/export.h> >> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h> >> > +#include <linux/slab.h> >> > +#include <linux/io.h> >> > +#include <linux/err.h> >> > +#include <linux/of_platform.h> >> > +#include <linux/of_address.h> >> > +#include <linux/mfd/core.h> >> > +#include <linux/mfd/omap_control.h> >> > + >> > +static struct omap_control *omap_control_module; >> > + >> > +/** >> > + * omap_control_readl: Read a single omap control module register. >> > + * >> > + * @dev: device to read from. >> > + * @reg: register to read. >> > + * @val: output with register value. >> > + * >> > + * returns 0 on success or -EINVAL in case struct device is invalid. >> > + */ >> > +int omap_control_readl(struct device *dev, u32 reg, u32 *val) >> > +{ >> > + struct omap_control *omap_control = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> > + >> > + if (!omap_control) >> > + return -EINVAL; >> > + >> > + *val = readl(omap_control->base + reg); >> > + >> > + return 0; >> > +} >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(omap_control_readl); >> > + >> I might have missed in the last scan, but can you let >> function return the register value. > > Why? > Because thats how typical read 1 value kind of functions look like.. >> >> I am guessing, you did this for error case handling. You might >> want to stick to read API semantic and just have WARN_ON() >> to take care of error case. > > Yeah, that was for error handling and to do not confuse register > values with error values. > No strong opinion if you like it that way but it just appeared odd to me from a caller perspective. >> >> > +/** >> > + * omap_control_writel: Write a single omap control module register. >> > + * >> > + * @dev: device to read from. >> > + * @val: value to write. >> > + * @reg: register to write to. >> > + * >> > + * returns 0 on success or -EINVAL in case struct device is invalid. >> > + */ >> > +int omap_control_writel(struct device *dev, u32 val, u32 reg) >> > +{ >> > + struct omap_control *omap_control = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> > + unsigned long flags; >> > + >> > + if (!omap_control) >> > + return -EINVAL; >> > + >> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&omap_control->reg_lock, flags); >> > + writel(val, omap_control->base + reg); >> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&omap_control->reg_lock, flags); >> > + >> > + return 0; >> > +} >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(omap_control_writel); >> > + >> > +/** >> > + * omap_control_get: returns the control module device pinter >> > + * >> > + * The modules which has to use control module API's to read or write should >> > + * call this API to get the control module device pointer. >> > + */ >> > +struct device *omap_control_get(void) >> > +{ >> > + unsigned long flags; >> > + >> > + if (!omap_control_module) >> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> > + >> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&omap_control_module->reg_lock, flags); >> > + omap_control_module->use_count++; >> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&omap_control_module->reg_lock, flags); >> > + >> > + return omap_control_module->dev; >> > +} >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(omap_control_get); >> > + >> > +/** >> > + * omap_control_put: returns the control module device pinter >> > + * >> > + * The modules which has to use control module API's to read or write should >> > + * call this API to get the control module device pointer. >> > + */ >> > +void omap_control_put(struct device *dev) >> > +{ >> > + struct omap_control *omap_control = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >> > + unsigned long flags; >> > + >> > + if (!omap_control) >> > + return; >> > + >> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&omap_control->reg_lock, flags); >> > + omap_control->use_count--; >> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&omap_control_module->reg_lock, flags); >> > +} >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(omap_control_put); >> > + >> > +static const struct of_device_id of_omap_control_match[] = { >> > + { .compatible = "ti,omap3-control", }, >> > + { .compatible = "ti,omap4-control", }, >> > + { .compatible = "ti,omap5-control", }, >> > + { }, >> > +}; >> > + >> > +static int __devinit omap_control_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > +{ >> > + struct resource *res; >> > + void __iomem *base; >> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; >> > + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node; >> > + struct omap_control *omap_control; >> > + >> > + omap_control = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*omap_control), GFP_KERNEL); >> > + if (!omap_control) { >> > + dev_err(dev, "not enough memory for omap_control\n"); >> > + return -ENOMEM; >> > + } >> > + >> > + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); >> > + if (!res) { >> > + dev_err(dev, "missing memory base resource\n"); >> > + return -EINVAL; >> > + } >> > + >> > + base = devm_request_and_ioremap(dev, res); >> > + if (!base) { >> > + dev_err(dev, "ioremap failed\n"); >> > + return -EADDRNOTAVAIL; >> > + } >> > + >> > + omap_control->base = base; >> > + omap_control->dev = dev; >> > + spin_lock_init(&omap_control->reg_lock); >> > + >> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, omap_control); >> > + omap_control_module = omap_control; >> > + >> > + return of_platform_populate(np, of_omap_control_match, NULL, dev); >> > +} >> > + >> >> Will the probe get called on multiple devices and race ? > > It depends. If we decide to have an early device for scm, then the probe will > be called more than once. If not, then only once. > OK. But in either case it won't race so that's fine. >> >> > +static int __devexit omap_control_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> > +{ >> > + struct omap_control *omap_control = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); >> > + >> > + spin_lock(&omap_control->reg_lock); >> > + if (omap_control->use_count > 0) { >> > + spin_unlock(&omap_control->reg_lock); >> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "device removed while still being used\n"); >> > + return -EBUSY; >> > + } >> > + spin_unlock(&omap_control->reg_lock); >> > + >> Do you really need above lock where you are just doing the >> register read. smp_rmb(), should be enough, I guess. > > It is locking the use counter not a register.. > Yes I know. But is just read and you can do away and hence you can avoid the lock. Regards Santosh _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
