On Tue May 23, 2023 at 3:36 PM CEST, wrote:
> Mon, May 22, 2023 at 06:31:13PM +0200, Esteban Blanc kirjoitti:
> > TPS6594 PMIC is a MFD. This patch adds support for
> > the RTC found inside TPS6594 family of PMIC.
> >
> > Alarm is also supported.
>
> ...
>
> > + help
> > + TI Power Management IC TPS6594 supports RTC functionality
> > + along with alarm. This driver supports the RTC driver for
> > + the TPS6594 RTC module.
> > +
> > + This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
> > + will be called tps6594-rtc
>
> Grammar period at the end?
Thanks!
> > +#define TPS6594_GET_TIME_ON TPS6594_BIT_GET_TIME
> > +#define TPS6594_GET_TIME_OFF 0
>
> Not used.
Thanks.
>
> > +#define TPS6594_IT_ALARM_ON TPS6594_BIT_IT_ALARM
> > +#define TPS6594_IT_ALARM_OFF 0
>
> Used only once.
True. Is that a bad thing?
> > +#define TPS6594_AUTO_COMP_ON TPS6594_BIT_IT_ALARM
>
> No _OFF counterpart.
>
> That said the _OFF can be dropped completely. And the rest I see no value to
> have, just use those bit definitions directly?
I was thinking it would make this more readable. I will remove them, no
problem.
> > +static int tps6594_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(struct device *dev,
> > + unsigned int enabled)
> > +{
> > + struct tps6594 *tps = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
> > + u8 val = 0;
>
> Redundant assignment.
>
Thanks!
> > + // Read shadowed RTC registers.
> > + ret = regmap_bulk_read(tps->regmap, TPS6594_REG_RTC_SECONDS, rtc_data,
> > + NUM_TIME_REGS);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + tm->tm_sec = bcd2bin(rtc_data[0]);
> > + tm->tm_min = bcd2bin(rtc_data[1]);
> > + tm->tm_hour = bcd2bin(rtc_data[2]);
> > + tm->tm_mday = bcd2bin(rtc_data[3]);
> > + tm->tm_mon = bcd2bin(rtc_data[4]) - 1;
> > + tm->tm_year = bcd2bin(rtc_data[5]) + 100;
> > + tm->tm_wday = bcd2bin(rtc_data[6]);
> > +
> > + return ret;
>
> return 0;
>
> No?
`regmap_bulk_read` returns 0 on success so ret should be 0 here. I will
apply your suggestion anyway it is more readable. Thanks!
> > +static int tps6594_rtc_set_calibration(struct device *dev, int calibration)
> > +{
> > + unsigned char comp_data[NUM_COMP_REGS];
> > + struct tps6594 *tps = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
> > + __le16 value;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * TPS6594 uses two's complement 16 bit value for compensation of RTC
> > + * crystal inaccuracies. One time every hour when seconds counter
> > + * increments from 0 to 1 compensation value will be added to internal
> > + * RTC counter value.
> > + *
> > + * Valid range for compensation value: [-32767 .. 32767].
>
> This is defined naturally by the bits available, correct?
Your right. Maybe `calibration` argument should be an s16 instead of an
int?
> > + */
> > + if (calibration < -32767 || calibration > 32767) {
>
> So, this can be S16_MIN / S16_MAX range. The question here is what the
> -32768 meaning is and why it can't be used.
I will rewrite it using this 2 macros.
This range [-32767,32767] is specified in the datasheet. As for why
-32768 can't be used I have no idea.
> > + dev_err(dev, "RTC calibration value out of range: %d\n",
> > + calibration);
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> -ERANGE
Ok, thanks.
> > + }
>
> > + value = (__le16)calibration;
> > +
> > + comp_data[0] = value & 0xFF;
> > + comp_data[1] = (value >> 8) & 0xFF;
>
> Of course these three lines is not what expected.
>
> value = cpu_to_le16();
Sorry for the mistake. I've tried to find more information on those type
but I did not realize there was specific functions/macros for them.
I have learn something today :)
> > + // Update all the compensation registers in one shot.
> > + ret = regmap_bulk_write(tps->regmap, TPS6594_REG_RTC_COMP_LSB,
> > + comp_data, NUM_COMP_REGS);
>
> &value, sizeof(value) ?
This is way cleaner indeed.
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + // Enable automatic compensation.
> > + return regmap_set_bits(tps->regmap, TPS6594_REG_RTC_CTRL_1,
> > + TPS6594_BIT_AUTO_COMP);
> > +}
> > + ret = regmap_bulk_read(tps->regmap, TPS6594_REG_RTC_COMP_LSB, comp_data,
> > + NUM_COMP_REGS);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + value = (__le16)comp_data[0] | ((__le16)comp_data[1] << 8);
> > +
> > + *calibration = value;
>
> In the similar (complementary API) way as above.
Sure.
> > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, NULL,
>
> Having
>
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>
> might make this and other lines shorter / neater.
Will do, thanks.
> > + tps6594_rtc_interrupt, IRQF_ONESHOT,
> > + TPS6594_IRQ_NAME_ALARM, &pdev->dev);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
> > + "Failed to request_threaded_irq\n");
Thanks for your review.
Best regards,
--
Esteban Blanc
BayLibre
