Good evening
Thank you very much for the feedback! I have now
updated the patch to register the fault pin.
Changes since v1:
- added TCPC_ALERT_FAULT to pins to unmask in tcpci_init
- Added missing "{}" in if statement
- checked patch using ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
Conversation:
>________________________________________
>Von: Yanik Fuchs <Yanik.fuchs@xxxxxx>
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Oktober 2024 21:13
>An: RD Babiera <rdbabiera@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Thank you for your fast response!
>
>I agree, since the Chip seems to need Fault alert acknowledged to work properly, it would, in my opinion, make sense to unmask the fault_alert at the init >phase prior IRQ, where the others alerts get unmasked. But I do not know if all, or just some faults trigger the fault_alert pin even if it is masked and if that >then would be an issue (like uneeded traffic on i2c).
>
>Best regards
>Yanik Fuchs
>
>________________________________________
>From: RD Babiera <rdbabiera@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 8:01:38 PM
>To: Yanik Fuchs <Yanik.fuchs@xxxxxx>
>
>Hi Yanik,
>
>> + /*
>> + * some chips asert fault alert, even if it is masked.
> >+ * The FAULT_STATUS is read and
> >+ */
> >+ if (status & TCPC_ALERT_FAULT)
> >+ regmap_read(tcpci->regmap, TCPC_FAULT_STATUS, &raw);
> >+ regmap_write(tcpci->regmap, TCPC_FAULT_STATUS, raw);
>
>Would it make sense to register TCPC_ALERT_FAULT to the alert mask as well?
>If TCPC_ALERT_FAULT would be the only alert to trigger an IRQ, will tcpci_irq
>still run if it is masked? i.e., can this patch only read/clear the
>fault status because
>it piggybacks off of another alert?
>
>Best,
>RD
I am looking forward to hear more feedback :)
Best regards
Yanik Fuchs
Signed-off-by: Yanik Fuchs <yanikfuchs@xxxxxx>
---
drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci.c b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci.c
index ed32583829be..eb6dee2f0c53 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/tcpci.c
@@ -686,7 +686,8 @@ static int tcpci_init(struct tcpc_dev *tcpc)
reg = TCPC_ALERT_TX_SUCCESS | TCPC_ALERT_TX_FAILED |
TCPC_ALERT_TX_DISCARDED | TCPC_ALERT_RX_STATUS |
- TCPC_ALERT_RX_HARD_RST | TCPC_ALERT_CC_STATUS;
+ TCPC_ALERT_RX_HARD_RST | TCPC_ALERT_CC_STATUS |
+ TCPC_ALERT_FAULT;
if (tcpci->controls_vbus)
reg |= TCPC_ALERT_POWER_STATUS;
/* Enable VSAFE0V status interrupt when detecting VSAFE0V is supported */
@@ -714,6 +715,14 @@ irqreturn_t tcpci_irq(struct tcpci *tcpci)
irq_ret = status & tcpci->alert_mask;
process_status:
+ /*
+ * some chips asert fault alert, even if it is masked.
+ * The FAULT_STATUS is read and written after to acknolige
+ */
+ if (status & TCPC_ALERT_FAULT) {
+ regmap_read(tcpci->regmap, TCPC_FAULT_STATUS, &raw);
+ regmap_write(tcpci->regmap, TCPC_FAULT_STATUS, raw);
+ }
/*
* Clear alert status for everything except RX_STATUS, which shouldn't
* be cleared until we have successfully retrieved message.
--
2.34.1
