On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 6/14/24 10:50, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > On 6/13/24 19:32, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, 04 Jun 2024, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > The ROHM BD96801 "scalable PMIC" provides two physical IRQs. The ERRB > > > > > handling can in many cases be omitted because it is used to inform fatal > > > > > IRQs, which usually kill the power from the SOC. > > > > > > > > > > There may however be use-cases where the SOC has a 'back-up' emergency > > > > > power source which allows some very short time of operation to try to > > > > > gracefully shut down sensitive hardware. Furthermore, it is possible the > > > > > processor controlling the PMIC is not powered by the PMIC. In such cases > > > > > handling the ERRB IRQs may be beneficial. > > > > > > > > > > Add support for ERRB IRQs. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Revision history: > > > > > v2 =>: > > > > > - No changes > > > > > v1 => v2: > > > > > - New patch > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c | 291 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > > > 1 file changed, 253 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c b/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c > > > > > index 1c2a9591be7b..b7f073318873 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c > > > > > @@ -5,13 +5,9 @@ > > > > > * ROHM BD96801 PMIC driver > > > > > * > > > > > * This version of the "BD86801 scalable PMIC"'s driver supports only very > > > > > - * basic set of the PMIC features. Most notably, there is no support for > > > > > - * the ERRB interrupt and the configurations which should be done when the > > > > > - * PMIC is in STBY mode. > > > > > - * > > > > > - * Supporting the ERRB interrupt would require dropping the regmap-IRQ > > > > > - * usage or working around (or accepting a presense of) a naming conflict > > > > > - * in debugFS IRQs. > > > > > > > > Why bother adding all that blurb in the first place? > > > > > > Because, I assume there are users who would like to have the ERRB in use. > > > The main purpose of this comment is that any such users could > > > a) see this version does not support ERRB. > > > b) can find the original RFC with ERRB supportn and a workaround. > > > c) know why this version does not work with ERRB and thus fix this > > > > > > It seems this ERRB support may be missing from upstream for a while, hence I > > > think having this note is worthy until (if) this ERRB patch lands in > > > upstream. > > > > What I mean is - you're adding all of these extra lines in patch 3 and > > removing them in patch 9. > > > > True. This is because I had a feeling the irqdomain changes might not get > merged that fast as it seemed like something that is not completely trivial. > This comment is useful if patches 7-10 aren't merged together with 1-6 - > which I now also hope is the case XD > > > > > > + * basic set of the PMIC features. > > > > > + * Most notably, there is no support for the configurations which should > > > > > + * be done when the PMIC is in STBY mode. > > > > > * > > > > > * Being able to reliably do the configurations like changing the > > > > > * regulator safety limits (like limits for the over/under -voltages, over > > > > > @@ -23,16 +19,14 @@ > > > > > * be the need to configure these safety limits. Hence it's not simple to > > > > > * come up with a generic solution. > > > > > * > > > > > - * Users who require the ERRB handling and STBY state configurations can > > > > > - * have a look at the original RFC: > > > > > + * Users who require the STBY state configurations can have a look at the > > > > > + * original RFC: > > > > > * https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712920132.git.mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > - * which implements a workaround to debugFS naming conflict and some of > > > > > - * the safety limit configurations - but leaves the state change handling > > > > > - * and synchronization to be implemented. > > > > > + * which implements some of the safety limit configurations - but leaves the > > > > > + * state change handling and synchronization to be implemented. > > > > > * > > > > > * It would be great to hear (and receive a patch!) if you implement the > > > > > - * STBY configuration support or a proper fix to the debugFS naming > > > > > - * conflict in your downstream driver ;) > > > > > + * STBY configuration support or a proper fix in your downstream driver ;) > > > > > */ > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Thanks for comments Lee. Reworking this will have to wait for the irqdomain > > > name suffix, which I will continue after Hervé has done his part of the > > > irqdomain changes. I will omit this patch from the next re-spin of the > > > series. > > > > I'm in no rush. :) > > Well, glad to hear ;) I still usually try to avoid delaying sending the > follow-up patches. I am under impression it is easier to review the new > revision if the previous revision was not reviewed too long ago... ;) I'm used to it. Old reviews are cached locally. > I feel it is polite to tell the reviewers there will be some delay when I > know it. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. :) -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
