| Message ID | 20220323162820.110806-1-caleb@connolly.tech |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | iio: adc: introduce Qualcomm SPMI Round Robin ADC | expand |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: > From: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> > > Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC > chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust > behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. > > This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust > coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, > this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at > runtime. > > Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > Tested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c | 261 +++++++++++++++++++----------- > include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h | 60 +++++++ > 2 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h Apologies for the delay. I've been snowed under. > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c b/drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c > index 1cacc00aa6c9..d8e54d9d3448 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c > @@ -3,11 +3,16 @@ > * Copyright (c) 2014, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved. > */ > > +#include <linux/device.h> > +#include <linux/errno.h> > +#include <linux/gfp.h> > #include <linux/kernel.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/spmi.h> > +#include <linux/types.h> > #include <linux/regmap.h> > #include <linux/of_platform.h> > +#include <soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h> > > #define PMIC_REV2 0x101 > #define PMIC_REV3 0x102 > @@ -17,106 +22,151 @@ > > #define PMIC_TYPE_VALUE 0x51 > > -#define COMMON_SUBTYPE 0x00 > -#define PM8941_SUBTYPE 0x01 > -#define PM8841_SUBTYPE 0x02 > -#define PM8019_SUBTYPE 0x03 > -#define PM8226_SUBTYPE 0x04 > -#define PM8110_SUBTYPE 0x05 > -#define PMA8084_SUBTYPE 0x06 > -#define PMI8962_SUBTYPE 0x07 > -#define PMD9635_SUBTYPE 0x08 > -#define PM8994_SUBTYPE 0x09 > -#define PMI8994_SUBTYPE 0x0a > -#define PM8916_SUBTYPE 0x0b > -#define PM8004_SUBTYPE 0x0c > -#define PM8909_SUBTYPE 0x0d > -#define PM8028_SUBTYPE 0x0e > -#define PM8901_SUBTYPE 0x0f > -#define PM8950_SUBTYPE 0x10 > -#define PMI8950_SUBTYPE 0x11 > -#define PM8998_SUBTYPE 0x14 > -#define PMI8998_SUBTYPE 0x15 > -#define PM8005_SUBTYPE 0x18 > -#define PM660L_SUBTYPE 0x1A > -#define PM660_SUBTYPE 0x1B > -#define PM8150_SUBTYPE 0x1E > -#define PM8150L_SUBTYPE 0x1f > -#define PM8150B_SUBTYPE 0x20 > -#define PMK8002_SUBTYPE 0x21 > -#define PM8009_SUBTYPE 0x24 > -#define PM8150C_SUBTYPE 0x26 > -#define SMB2351_SUBTYPE 0x29 > +struct qcom_spmi_dev { > + int num_usids; > + struct qcom_spmi_pmic pmic; > +}; > + > +#define N_USIDS(n) ((void *)n) > > static const struct of_device_id pmic_spmi_id_table[] = { > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm660", .data = (void *)PM660_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm660l", .data = (void *)PM660L_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8004", .data = (void *)PM8004_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8005", .data = (void *)PM8005_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8019", .data = (void *)PM8019_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8028", .data = (void *)PM8028_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8110", .data = (void *)PM8110_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150", .data = (void *)PM8150_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150b", .data = (void *)PM8150B_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150c", .data = (void *)PM8150C_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150l", .data = (void *)PM8150L_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8226", .data = (void *)PM8226_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8841", .data = (void *)PM8841_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8901", .data = (void *)PM8901_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8909", .data = (void *)PM8909_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8916", .data = (void *)PM8916_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8941", .data = (void *)PM8941_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8950", .data = (void *)PM8950_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8994", .data = (void *)PM8994_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8998", .data = (void *)PM8998_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pma8084", .data = (void *)PMA8084_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pmd9635", .data = (void *)PMD9635_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8950", .data = (void *)PMI8950_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8962", .data = (void *)PMI8962_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8994", .data = (void *)PMI8994_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8998", .data = (void *)PMI8998_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,pmk8002", .data = (void *)PMK8002_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,smb2351", .data = (void *)SMB2351_SUBTYPE }, > - { .compatible = "qcom,spmi-pmic", .data = (void *)COMMON_SUBTYPE }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm660", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm660l", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8004", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8005", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8019", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8028", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8110", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150b", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150c", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150l", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8226", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8841", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8901", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8909", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8916", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8941", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8950", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8994", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8998", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pma8084", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pmd9635", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8950", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8962", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8994", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8998", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,pmk8002", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,smb2351", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, > + { .compatible = "qcom,spmi-pmic", .data = N_USIDS(1) }, > { } > }; > > -static void pmic_spmi_show_revid(struct regmap *map, struct device *dev) > +#undef N_USIDS Why is this here? Can't we use a unique macro instead? > +/* > + * A PMIC can be represented by multiple SPMI devices, but > + * only the base PMIC device will contain a reference to > + * the revision information. > + * > + * This function takes a pointer to a function device and > + * returns a pointer to the base PMIC device. > + * > + * This only supports PMICs with 1 or 2 USIDs. > + */ > +static struct spmi_device *qcom_pmic_get_base_usid(struct device *dev) > { > - unsigned int rev2, minor, major, type, subtype; > - const char *name = "unknown"; > - int ret, i; > + struct spmi_device *sdev; > + struct qcom_spmi_dev *ctx; > + struct device_node *spmi_bus; > + struct device_node *other_usid = NULL; > + int function_parent_usid, ret; > + u32 pmic_addr; > > - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_TYPE, &type); > - if (ret < 0) > - return; > + if (!of_match_device(pmic_spmi_id_table, dev)) > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); Can this happen? How else would the device have been enumerated? > + sdev = to_spmi_device(dev); > + ctx = spmi_device_get_drvdata(sdev); This function looks like abstraction for the sake of abstraction. Why not just use dev_get_drvdata()? > + /* > + * Quick return if the function device is already in the base > + * USID. This will always be hit for PMICs with only 1 USID. > + */ > + if (sdev->usid % ctx->num_usids == 0) > + return sdev; > + > + function_parent_usid = sdev->usid; > + > + /* > + * Walk through the list of PMICs until we find the sibling USID. > + * The goal is to find the first USID which is less than the > + * number of USIDs in the PMIC away, e.g. for a PMIC with 2 USIDs "array" perhaps? > + * where the function device is under USID 3, we want to find the > + * device for USID 2. > + */ > + spmi_bus = of_get_parent(sdev->dev.of_node); > + do { > + other_usid = of_get_next_child(spmi_bus, other_usid); '\n' > + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(other_usid, "reg", 0, &pmic_addr); > + if (ret) > + return ERR_PTR(ret); '\n' > + sdev = spmi_device_from_of(other_usid); > + if (sdev == NULL) { if (!sdev) > + /* > + * If the base USID for this PMIC hasn't probed yet > + * but the secondary USID has, then we need to defer > + * the function driver so that it will attempt to > + * probe again when the base USID is ready. > + */ > + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) Double " ". Over-bracketing of statements with matching operands. > + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > + > + continue; > + } > + > + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) > + return sdev; Wouldn't it be better written like this: > + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) { > + sdev = spmi_device_from_of(other_usid); > + if (!sdev) > + /* > + * If the base USID for this PMIC hasn't probed yet > + * but the secondary USID has, then we need to defer > + * the function driver so that it will attempt to > + * probe again when the base USID is ready. > + */ > + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > + return sdev; > + } [...] > + } while (other_usid->sibling); > + > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODATA); > +} > + > +static inline void pmic_print_info(struct device *dev, struct qcom_spmi_pmic *pmic) > +{ > + dev_dbg(dev, "%x: %s v%d.%d\n", > + pmic->subtype, pmic->name, pmic->major, pmic->minor); > +} More abstraction for no apparent reason. > - if (type != PMIC_TYPE_VALUE) > - return; > +static int pmic_spmi_load_revid(struct regmap *map, struct device *dev, > + struct qcom_spmi_pmic *pmic) > +{ > + int ret; > > - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_SUBTYPE, &subtype); > + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_TYPE, &pmic->type); > if (ret < 0) > - return; > + return ret; > > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pmic_spmi_id_table); i++) { > - if (subtype == (unsigned long)pmic_spmi_id_table[i].data) > - break; > - } > + if (pmic->type != PMIC_TYPE_VALUE) > + return ret; > > - if (i != ARRAY_SIZE(pmic_spmi_id_table)) > - name = pmic_spmi_id_table[i].compatible; > + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_SUBTYPE, &pmic->subtype); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + > + pmic->name = of_match_device(pmic_spmi_id_table, dev)->compatible; > > - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV2, &rev2); > + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV2, &pmic->rev2); > if (ret < 0) > - return; > + return ret; > > - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV3, &minor); > + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV3, &pmic->minor); > if (ret < 0) > - return; > + return ret; > > - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV4, &major); > + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV4, &pmic->major); > if (ret < 0) > - return; > + return ret; > > /* > * In early versions of PM8941 and PM8226, the major revision number > @@ -124,15 +174,34 @@ static void pmic_spmi_show_revid(struct regmap *map, struct device *dev) > * Increment the major revision number here if the chip is an early > * version of PM8941 or PM8226. > */ > - if ((subtype == PM8941_SUBTYPE || subtype == PM8226_SUBTYPE) && > - major < 0x02) > - major++; > + if ((pmic->subtype == PM8941_SUBTYPE || pmic->subtype == PM8226_SUBTYPE) && > + pmic->major < 0x02) Please define this magic number while you're at it. > + pmic->major++; > + > + if (pmic->subtype == PM8110_SUBTYPE) > + pmic->minor = pmic->rev2; > + > + pmic_print_info(dev, pmic); > > - if (subtype == PM8110_SUBTYPE) > - minor = rev2; > + return 0; > +} > + > +/** > + * qcom_pmic_get() - Get a pointer to the base PMIC device > + * > + * @dev: the pmic function device > + * @return: the struct qcom_spmi_pmic* pointer associated with the function device > + */ > +inline const struct qcom_spmi_pmic *qcom_pmic_get(struct device *dev) > +{ > + struct spmi_device *sdev = qcom_pmic_get_base_usid(dev->parent); > > - dev_dbg(dev, "%x: %s v%d.%d\n", subtype, name, major, minor); > + if (IS_ERR(sdev)) > + return ERR_CAST(sdev); > + > + return &((struct qcom_spmi_dev *)spmi_device_get_drvdata(sdev))->pmic; This is horrible. Please expand it out. > } > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_pmic_get); > > static const struct regmap_config spmi_regmap_config = { > .reg_bits = 16, > @@ -144,14 +213,26 @@ static const struct regmap_config spmi_regmap_config = { > static int pmic_spmi_probe(struct spmi_device *sdev) > { > struct regmap *regmap; > + struct qcom_spmi_dev *ctx; > + int ret; > > regmap = devm_regmap_init_spmi_ext(sdev, &spmi_regmap_config); > if (IS_ERR(regmap)) > return PTR_ERR(regmap); > > + ctx = devm_kzalloc(&sdev->dev, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!ctx) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + ctx->num_usids = (long)of_device_get_match_data(&sdev->dev); Why does this need to be long? In fact, it's not is it? It's an int: +struct qcom_spmi_dev { + int num_usids; + struct qcom_spmi_pmic pmic; +}; > /* Only the first slave id for a PMIC contains this information */ > - if (sdev->usid % 2 == 0) > - pmic_spmi_show_revid(regmap, &sdev->dev); > + if (sdev->usid % ctx->num_usids == 0) { > + ret = pmic_spmi_load_revid(regmap, &sdev->dev, &ctx->pmic); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + } > + spmi_device_set_drvdata(sdev, ctx); > > return devm_of_platform_populate(&sdev->dev); > } > diff --git a/include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h b/include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..5400e6509fe8 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h > @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > +/* Copyright (c) 2021 Linaro. All rights reserved. > + * Copyright (c) 2021 Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> Your very own Copyright? Why? Any not Author: instead? > + */ > + > +#ifndef __QCOM_SPMI_PMIC_H__ > +#define __QCOM_SPMI_PMIC_H__ > + > +#define COMMON_SUBTYPE 0x00 > +#define PM8941_SUBTYPE 0x01 > +#define PM8841_SUBTYPE 0x02 > +#define PM8019_SUBTYPE 0x03 > +#define PM8226_SUBTYPE 0x04 > +#define PM8110_SUBTYPE 0x05 > +#define PMA8084_SUBTYPE 0x06 > +#define PMI8962_SUBTYPE 0x07 > +#define PMD9635_SUBTYPE 0x08 > +#define PM8994_SUBTYPE 0x09 > +#define PMI8994_SUBTYPE 0x0a > +#define PM8916_SUBTYPE 0x0b > +#define PM8004_SUBTYPE 0x0c > +#define PM8909_SUBTYPE 0x0d > +#define PM8028_SUBTYPE 0x0e > +#define PM8901_SUBTYPE 0x0f > +#define PM8950_SUBTYPE 0x10 > +#define PMI8950_SUBTYPE 0x11 > +#define PM8998_SUBTYPE 0x14 > +#define PMI8998_SUBTYPE 0x15 > +#define PM8005_SUBTYPE 0x18 > +#define PM660L_SUBTYPE 0x1A > +#define PM660_SUBTYPE 0x1B > +#define PM8150_SUBTYPE 0x1E > +#define PM8150L_SUBTYPE 0x1f > +#define PM8150B_SUBTYPE 0x20 > +#define PMK8002_SUBTYPE 0x21 > +#define PM8009_SUBTYPE 0x24 > +#define PM8150C_SUBTYPE 0x26 > +#define SMB2351_SUBTYPE 0x29 > + > +#define PMI8998_FAB_ID_SMIC 0x11 > +#define PMI8998_FAB_ID_GF 0x30 > + > +#define PM660_FAB_ID_GF 0x0 > +#define PM660_FAB_ID_TSMC 0x2 > +#define PM660_FAB_ID_MX 0x3 > + > +struct qcom_spmi_pmic { > + unsigned int type; > + unsigned int subtype; > + unsigned int major; > + unsigned int minor; > + unsigned int rev2; > + const char *name; > +}; > + > +struct device; Can't you just include the correct header? > +inline const struct qcom_spmi_pmic *qcom_pmic_get(struct device *dev); > + > +#endif /* __QCOM_SPMI_PMIC_H__ */
On 25/04/2022 16:03, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: >> From: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> >> >> Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC >> chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust >> behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. >> >> This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust >> coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, >> this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at >> runtime. >> >> Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> >> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >> Tested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c | 261 +++++++++++++++++++----------- >> include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h | 60 +++++++ >> 2 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h > > Apologies for the delay. I've been snowed under. Hi Lee, Thanks a lot for the review, I had a few questions/clarifications > >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c b/drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c >> index 1cacc00aa6c9..d8e54d9d3448 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c >> @@ -3,11 +3,16 @@ >> * Copyright (c) 2014, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved. >> */ >> >> +#include <linux/device.h> >> +#include <linux/errno.h> >> +#include <linux/gfp.h> >> #include <linux/kernel.h> >> #include <linux/module.h> >> #include <linux/spmi.h> >> +#include <linux/types.h> >> #include <linux/regmap.h> >> #include <linux/of_platform.h> >> +#include <soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h> >> >> #define PMIC_REV2 0x101 >> #define PMIC_REV3 0x102 >> @@ -17,106 +22,151 @@ >> >> #define PMIC_TYPE_VALUE 0x51 >> >> -#define COMMON_SUBTYPE 0x00 >> -#define PM8941_SUBTYPE 0x01 >> -#define PM8841_SUBTYPE 0x02 >> -#define PM8019_SUBTYPE 0x03 >> -#define PM8226_SUBTYPE 0x04 >> -#define PM8110_SUBTYPE 0x05 >> -#define PMA8084_SUBTYPE 0x06 >> -#define PMI8962_SUBTYPE 0x07 >> -#define PMD9635_SUBTYPE 0x08 >> -#define PM8994_SUBTYPE 0x09 >> -#define PMI8994_SUBTYPE 0x0a >> -#define PM8916_SUBTYPE 0x0b >> -#define PM8004_SUBTYPE 0x0c >> -#define PM8909_SUBTYPE 0x0d >> -#define PM8028_SUBTYPE 0x0e >> -#define PM8901_SUBTYPE 0x0f >> -#define PM8950_SUBTYPE 0x10 >> -#define PMI8950_SUBTYPE 0x11 >> -#define PM8998_SUBTYPE 0x14 >> -#define PMI8998_SUBTYPE 0x15 >> -#define PM8005_SUBTYPE 0x18 >> -#define PM660L_SUBTYPE 0x1A >> -#define PM660_SUBTYPE 0x1B >> -#define PM8150_SUBTYPE 0x1E >> -#define PM8150L_SUBTYPE 0x1f >> -#define PM8150B_SUBTYPE 0x20 >> -#define PMK8002_SUBTYPE 0x21 >> -#define PM8009_SUBTYPE 0x24 >> -#define PM8150C_SUBTYPE 0x26 >> -#define SMB2351_SUBTYPE 0x29 >> +struct qcom_spmi_dev { >> + int num_usids; >> + struct qcom_spmi_pmic pmic; >> +}; >> + >> +#define N_USIDS(n) ((void *)n) >> >> static const struct of_device_id pmic_spmi_id_table[] = { >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm660", .data = (void *)PM660_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm660l", .data = (void *)PM660L_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8004", .data = (void *)PM8004_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8005", .data = (void *)PM8005_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8019", .data = (void *)PM8019_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8028", .data = (void *)PM8028_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8110", .data = (void *)PM8110_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150", .data = (void *)PM8150_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150b", .data = (void *)PM8150B_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150c", .data = (void *)PM8150C_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150l", .data = (void *)PM8150L_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8226", .data = (void *)PM8226_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8841", .data = (void *)PM8841_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8901", .data = (void *)PM8901_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8909", .data = (void *)PM8909_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8916", .data = (void *)PM8916_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8941", .data = (void *)PM8941_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8950", .data = (void *)PM8950_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8994", .data = (void *)PM8994_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pm8998", .data = (void *)PM8998_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pma8084", .data = (void *)PMA8084_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pmd9635", .data = (void *)PMD9635_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8950", .data = (void *)PMI8950_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8962", .data = (void *)PMI8962_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8994", .data = (void *)PMI8994_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8998", .data = (void *)PMI8998_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,pmk8002", .data = (void *)PMK8002_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,smb2351", .data = (void *)SMB2351_SUBTYPE }, >> - { .compatible = "qcom,spmi-pmic", .data = (void *)COMMON_SUBTYPE }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm660", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm660l", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8004", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8005", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8019", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8028", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8110", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150b", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150c", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8150l", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8226", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8841", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8901", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8909", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8916", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8941", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8950", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8994", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pm8998", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pma8084", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pmd9635", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8950", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8962", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8994", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pmi8998", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,pmk8002", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,smb2351", .data = N_USIDS(2) }, >> + { .compatible = "qcom,spmi-pmic", .data = N_USIDS(1) }, >> { } >> }; >> >> -static void pmic_spmi_show_revid(struct regmap *map, struct device *dev) >> +#undef N_USIDS > > Why is this here? Can't we use a unique macro instead? This felt neat to do but yeah there's no reason to undefine the macro, I'll drop this. > >> +/* >> + * A PMIC can be represented by multiple SPMI devices, but >> + * only the base PMIC device will contain a reference to >> + * the revision information. >> + * >> + * This function takes a pointer to a function device and >> + * returns a pointer to the base PMIC device. >> + * >> + * This only supports PMICs with 1 or 2 USIDs. >> + */ >> +static struct spmi_device *qcom_pmic_get_base_usid(struct device *dev) >> { >> - unsigned int rev2, minor, major, type, subtype; >> - const char *name = "unknown"; >> - int ret, i; >> + struct spmi_device *sdev; >> + struct qcom_spmi_dev *ctx; >> + struct device_node *spmi_bus; >> + struct device_node *other_usid = NULL; >> + int function_parent_usid, ret; >> + u32 pmic_addr; >> >> - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_TYPE, &type); >> - if (ret < 0) >> - return; >> + if (!of_match_device(pmic_spmi_id_table, dev)) >> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > Can this happen? How else would the device have been enumerated? This function gets called from "qcom_pmic_get()" which can be called by any driver, the check is to make sure it's only called from drivers which are children of a qcom PMIC. > >> + sdev = to_spmi_device(dev); >> + ctx = spmi_device_get_drvdata(sdev); > > This function looks like abstraction for the sake of abstraction. > > Why not just use dev_get_drvdata()? That seems more sensible. > >> + /* >> + * Quick return if the function device is already in the base >> + * USID. This will always be hit for PMICs with only 1 USID. >> + */ >> + if (sdev->usid % ctx->num_usids == 0) >> + return sdev; >> + >> + function_parent_usid = sdev->usid; >> + >> + /* >> + * Walk through the list of PMICs until we find the sibling USID. >> + * The goal is to find the first USID which is less than the >> + * number of USIDs in the PMIC away, e.g. for a PMIC with 2 USIDs > > "array" perhaps? > >> + * where the function device is under USID 3, we want to find the >> + * device for USID 2. >> + */ >> + spmi_bus = of_get_parent(sdev->dev.of_node); >> + do { >> + other_usid = of_get_next_child(spmi_bus, other_usid); > > '\n' > >> + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(other_usid, "reg", 0, &pmic_addr); >> + if (ret) >> + return ERR_PTR(ret); > > '\n' > >> + sdev = spmi_device_from_of(other_usid); >> + if (sdev == NULL) { > > if (!sdev) > >> + /* >> + * If the base USID for this PMIC hasn't probed yet >> + * but the secondary USID has, then we need to defer >> + * the function driver so that it will attempt to >> + * probe again when the base USID is ready. >> + */ >> + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) > > Double " ". Ack > > Over-bracketing of statements with matching operands. I don't think x - (y - 1) is equal to x - y - 1? Or am I misunderstanding you here? > >> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); >> + >> + continue; >> + } >> + >> + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) >> + return sdev; > > Wouldn't it be better written like this: Yeah > >> + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) { >> + sdev = spmi_device_from_of(other_usid); >> + if (!sdev) >> + /* >> + * If the base USID for this PMIC hasn't probed yet >> + * but the secondary USID has, then we need to defer >> + * the function driver so that it will attempt to >> + * probe again when the base USID is ready. >> + */ >> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); >> + return sdev; >> + } > > [...] > >> + } while (other_usid->sibling); >> + >> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODATA); >> +} >> + >> +static inline void pmic_print_info(struct device *dev, struct qcom_spmi_pmic *pmic) >> +{ >> + dev_dbg(dev, "%x: %s v%d.%d\n", >> + pmic->subtype, pmic->name, pmic->major, pmic->minor); >> +} > > More abstraction for no apparent reason. Oops, this got a bit messy over several reworks, I'll stick the dev_dbg back in pmic_spmi_load_revid() and drop this function. > >> - if (type != PMIC_TYPE_VALUE) >> - return; >> +static int pmic_spmi_load_revid(struct regmap *map, struct device *dev, >> + struct qcom_spmi_pmic *pmic) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> >> - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_SUBTYPE, &subtype); >> + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_TYPE, &pmic->type); >> if (ret < 0) >> - return; >> + return ret; >> >> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pmic_spmi_id_table); i++) { >> - if (subtype == (unsigned long)pmic_spmi_id_table[i].data) >> - break; >> - } >> + if (pmic->type != PMIC_TYPE_VALUE) >> + return ret; >> >> - if (i != ARRAY_SIZE(pmic_spmi_id_table)) >> - name = pmic_spmi_id_table[i].compatible; >> + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_SUBTYPE, &pmic->subtype); >> + if (ret < 0) >> + return ret; >> + >> + pmic->name = of_match_device(pmic_spmi_id_table, dev)->compatible; >> >> - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV2, &rev2); >> + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV2, &pmic->rev2); >> if (ret < 0) >> - return; >> + return ret; >> >> - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV3, &minor); >> + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV3, &pmic->minor); >> if (ret < 0) >> - return; >> + return ret; >> >> - ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV4, &major); >> + ret = regmap_read(map, PMIC_REV4, &pmic->major); >> if (ret < 0) >> - return; >> + return ret; >> >> /* >> * In early versions of PM8941 and PM8226, the major revision number >> @@ -124,15 +174,34 @@ static void pmic_spmi_show_revid(struct regmap *map, struct device *dev) >> * Increment the major revision number here if the chip is an early >> * version of PM8941 or PM8226. >> */ >> - if ((subtype == PM8941_SUBTYPE || subtype == PM8226_SUBTYPE) && >> - major < 0x02) >> - major++; >> + if ((pmic->subtype == PM8941_SUBTYPE || pmic->subtype == PM8226_SUBTYPE) && >> + pmic->major < 0x02) > > Please define this magic number while you're at it. > >> + pmic->major++; >> + >> + if (pmic->subtype == PM8110_SUBTYPE) >> + pmic->minor = pmic->rev2; >> + >> + pmic_print_info(dev, pmic); >> >> - if (subtype == PM8110_SUBTYPE) >> - minor = rev2; >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +/** >> + * qcom_pmic_get() - Get a pointer to the base PMIC device >> + * >> + * @dev: the pmic function device >> + * @return: the struct qcom_spmi_pmic* pointer associated with the function device >> + */ >> +inline const struct qcom_spmi_pmic *qcom_pmic_get(struct device *dev) >> +{ >> + struct spmi_device *sdev = qcom_pmic_get_base_usid(dev->parent); >> >> - dev_dbg(dev, "%x: %s v%d.%d\n", subtype, name, major, minor); >> + if (IS_ERR(sdev)) >> + return ERR_CAST(sdev); >> + >> + return &((struct qcom_spmi_dev *)spmi_device_get_drvdata(sdev))->pmic; > > This is horrible. Please expand it out. > >> } >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_pmic_get); >> >> static const struct regmap_config spmi_regmap_config = { >> .reg_bits = 16, >> @@ -144,14 +213,26 @@ static const struct regmap_config spmi_regmap_config = { >> static int pmic_spmi_probe(struct spmi_device *sdev) >> { >> struct regmap *regmap; >> + struct qcom_spmi_dev *ctx; >> + int ret; >> >> regmap = devm_regmap_init_spmi_ext(sdev, &spmi_regmap_config); >> if (IS_ERR(regmap)) >> return PTR_ERR(regmap); >> >> + ctx = devm_kzalloc(&sdev->dev, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!ctx) >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + >> + ctx->num_usids = (long)of_device_get_match_data(&sdev->dev); > > Why does this need to be long? The compiler complains with ../drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c: In function 'pmic_spmi_probe': ../drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c:236:26: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast] 236 | ctx->num_usids = (int)of_device_get_match_data(&sdev->dev); | Due to match data being void*. I wasn't able to find a better solution than casting this way, do you have any suggestions? I just found uintptr_t, maybe that might be more explicit? > > In fact, it's not is it? It's an int: > > +struct qcom_spmi_dev { > + int num_usids; > + struct qcom_spmi_pmic pmic; > +}; > >> /* Only the first slave id for a PMIC contains this information */ >> - if (sdev->usid % 2 == 0) >> - pmic_spmi_show_revid(regmap, &sdev->dev); >> + if (sdev->usid % ctx->num_usids == 0) { >> + ret = pmic_spmi_load_revid(regmap, &sdev->dev, &ctx->pmic); >> + if (ret < 0) >> + return ret; >> + } >> + spmi_device_set_drvdata(sdev, ctx); >> >> return devm_of_platform_populate(&sdev->dev); >> } >> diff --git a/include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h b/include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..5400e6509fe8 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ >> +/* Copyright (c) 2021 Linaro. All rights reserved. >> + * Copyright (c) 2021 Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> > > Your very own Copyright? Why? I did some research originally and couldn't find any docs on Linaro precedent here, so went with this originally... I switched over the other files when I realised that "Author:" was the preferred approach but I guess this one slipped through the crack. > > Any not Author: instead? > >> + */ >> + >> +#ifndef __QCOM_SPMI_PMIC_H__ >> +#define __QCOM_SPMI_PMIC_H__ >> + >> +#define COMMON_SUBTYPE 0x00 >> +#define PM8941_SUBTYPE 0x01 >> +#define PM8841_SUBTYPE 0x02 >> +#define PM8019_SUBTYPE 0x03 >> +#define PM8226_SUBTYPE 0x04 >> +#define PM8110_SUBTYPE 0x05 >> +#define PMA8084_SUBTYPE 0x06 >> +#define PMI8962_SUBTYPE 0x07 >> +#define PMD9635_SUBTYPE 0x08 >> +#define PM8994_SUBTYPE 0x09 >> +#define PMI8994_SUBTYPE 0x0a >> +#define PM8916_SUBTYPE 0x0b >> +#define PM8004_SUBTYPE 0x0c >> +#define PM8909_SUBTYPE 0x0d >> +#define PM8028_SUBTYPE 0x0e >> +#define PM8901_SUBTYPE 0x0f >> +#define PM8950_SUBTYPE 0x10 >> +#define PMI8950_SUBTYPE 0x11 >> +#define PM8998_SUBTYPE 0x14 >> +#define PMI8998_SUBTYPE 0x15 >> +#define PM8005_SUBTYPE 0x18 >> +#define PM660L_SUBTYPE 0x1A >> +#define PM660_SUBTYPE 0x1B >> +#define PM8150_SUBTYPE 0x1E >> +#define PM8150L_SUBTYPE 0x1f >> +#define PM8150B_SUBTYPE 0x20 >> +#define PMK8002_SUBTYPE 0x21 >> +#define PM8009_SUBTYPE 0x24 >> +#define PM8150C_SUBTYPE 0x26 >> +#define SMB2351_SUBTYPE 0x29 >> + >> +#define PMI8998_FAB_ID_SMIC 0x11 >> +#define PMI8998_FAB_ID_GF 0x30 >> + >> +#define PM660_FAB_ID_GF 0x0 >> +#define PM660_FAB_ID_TSMC 0x2 >> +#define PM660_FAB_ID_MX 0x3 >> + >> +struct qcom_spmi_pmic { >> + unsigned int type; >> + unsigned int subtype; >> + unsigned int major; >> + unsigned int minor; >> + unsigned int rev2; >> + const char *name; >> +}; >> + >> +struct device; > > Can't you just include the correct header?Sure > >> +inline const struct qcom_spmi_pmic *qcom_pmic_get(struct device *dev); >> + >> +#endif /* __QCOM_SPMI_PMIC_H__ */ >
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: > On 25/04/2022 16:03, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: > > > From: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> > > > > > > Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC > > > chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust > > > behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. > > > > > > This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust > > > coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, > > > this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at > > > runtime. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > > Tested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c | 261 +++++++++++++++++++----------- > > > include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h | 60 +++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h [...] > > > + /* > > > + * If the base USID for this PMIC hasn't probed yet > > > + * but the secondary USID has, then we need to defer > > > + * the function driver so that it will attempt to > > > + * probe again when the base USID is ready. > > > + */ > > > + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) > > > > Double " ". > Ack > > > > Over-bracketing of statements with matching operands. > I don't think x - (y - 1) is equal to x - y - 1? Or am I misunderstanding you here? Can you give me an example when this would be the case?
On 28/04/2022 17:14, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: >> On 25/04/2022 16:03, Lee Jones wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: >>>> From: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC >>>> chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust >>>> behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. >>>> >>>> This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust >>>> coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, >>>> this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at >>>> runtime. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> >>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >>>> Tested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c | 261 +++++++++++++++++++----------- >>>> include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h | 60 +++++++ >>>> 2 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h > > [...] > >>>> + /* >>>> + * If the base USID for this PMIC hasn't probed yet >>>> + * but the secondary USID has, then we need to defer >>>> + * the function driver so that it will attempt to >>>> + * probe again when the base USID is ready. >>>> + */ >>>> + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) >>> >>> Double " ". >> Ack >>> >>> Over-bracketing of statements with matching operands. >> I don't think x - (y - 1) is equal to x - y - 1? Or am I misunderstanding you here? > > Can you give me an example when this would be the case? According to the Python interpreter: >>> x=7 >>> y=4 >>> x - y - 1 2 >>> x - (y - 1) 4 C does also respect the first rule of BODMAS - parenthesis are always evaluated first. >
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: > On 28/04/2022 17:14, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: > > > On 25/04/2022 16:03, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: > > > > > From: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC > > > > > chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust > > > > > behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. > > > > > > > > > > This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust > > > > > coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, > > > > > this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at > > > > > runtime. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > > > > Tested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c | 261 +++++++++++++++++++----------- > > > > > include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h | 60 +++++++ > > > > > 2 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-) > > > > > create mode 100644 include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h > > > > [...] > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * If the base USID for this PMIC hasn't probed yet > > > > > + * but the secondary USID has, then we need to defer > > > > > + * the function driver so that it will attempt to > > > > > + * probe again when the base USID is ready. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) > > > > > > > > Double " ". > > > Ack > > > > > > > > Over-bracketing of statements with matching operands. > > > I don't think x - (y - 1) is equal to x - y - 1? Or am I misunderstanding you here? > > > > Can you give me an example when this would be the case? > According to the Python interpreter: > >>> x=7 > >>> y=4 > >>> x - y - 1 > 2 > >>> x - (y - 1) > 4 > > C does also respect the first rule of BODMAS - parenthesis are always > evaluated first. Fair point, well presented. Thanks for this - I understand the problem now.
On 29/04/2022 11:06, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: >> On 28/04/2022 17:14, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: >>>> On 25/04/2022 16:03, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Caleb Connolly wrote: >>>>>> From: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> >>>>>> >>>>>> Some PMIC functions such as the RRADC need to be aware of the PMIC >>>>>> chip revision information to implement errata or otherwise adjust >>>>>> behaviour, export the PMIC information to enable this. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is specifically required to enable the RRADC to adjust >>>>>> coefficients based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, >>>>>> this can vary per unique device and therefore has to be read at >>>>>> runtime. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly@linaro.org> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >>>>>> Tested-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c | 261 +++++++++++++++++++----------- >>>>>> include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h | 60 +++++++ >>>>>> 2 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-) >>>>>> create mode 100644 include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>>> + /* >>>>>> + * If the base USID for this PMIC hasn't probed yet >>>>>> + * but the secondary USID has, then we need to defer >>>>>> + * the function driver so that it will attempt to >>>>>> + * probe again when the base USID is ready. >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> + if (pmic_addr == function_parent_usid - (ctx->num_usids - 1)) >>>>> >>>>> Double " ". >>>> Ack >>>>> >>>>> Over-bracketing of statements with matching operands. >>>> I don't think x - (y - 1) is equal to x - y - 1? Or am I misunderstanding you here? >>> >>> Can you give me an example when this would be the case? >> According to the Python interpreter: >>>>> x=7 >>>>> y=4 >>>>> x - y - 1 >> 2 >>>>> x - (y - 1) >> 4 >> >> C does also respect the first rule of BODMAS - parenthesis are always >> evaluated first. > > Fair point, well presented. > > Thanks for this - I understand the problem now. Thanks, Could you respond to my other two points in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/2763f103-6947-e431-cef5-e202c324d678@linaro.org/ Regarding if (!of_match_device(pmic_spmi_id_table, dev)) and ctx->num_usids = (long)of_device_get_match_data(&sdev->dev); >
The RRADC is responsible for reading data about the current and voltage from the USB or DC in jacks, it can also read the battery ID (resistence) and some temperatures. It is found on the PMI8998 and PM660 Qualcomm PMICs. The RRADC has to calibrate some ADC values based on which chip fab the PMIC was produced in, to facilitate this the patches ("mfd: qcom-spmi-pmic: expose the PMIC revid information to clients") and ("mfd: qcom-spmi-pmic: read fab id on supported PMICs") expose the PMIC revision information and fab_id as a struct and register them as driver data in the Qualcomm SPMI PMIC driver so that it can be read by the RRADC. The first 3 patches add support for looking up an SPMI device from a struct device_node, as well as introducing support for looking up the base USID of a Qcom PMIC, see patch comments for more details. These Address Bjorns comments on v2. Changes since v12: * Apply Krzysztof's suggestions to rradc DT binding docs. Changes since v11: * Remove debug logging which was left in ("mfd: qcom-spmi-pmic: expose the PMIC revid information to clients") * Picked up Dmitry's Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags. Changes since v10: * Don't inline spmi_device_from_of() Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Changes since v9: * Add back missing copyright, this driver is originally derived from downstream (Thanks Manivannan). Changes since v8: * Drop Reported-by for the bugfix on previous revision reported by LKP * Apply Jonathans suggestions * Rework patch 2 ("expose the PMIC revid information to clients") to handle PMICs with a single USID (thanks Dmitry) Changes since v7: * Addressed Jonathans comments * Fixed bug reported by LKP Changes since v6: * Fix printf format warning in rradc Changes since v5: * Add missing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to ("spmi: add a helper to look up an SPMI device from a device node") Changes since v4: * Addressed Jonathan's comments on v4 * Reworked the qcom-spmi-pmic patches to properly walk the devicetree to find the base USID. I've tested this on SDM845 which has two PMICs (pm8998 and pmi8998) and I'm able to look up the PMIC revid from all 4 USIDs. Changes since v3: * Split PMIC patch in two, rework to support function drivers on a sibling USID * Completely rework RRADC driver to make use of the modern IIO framework. This required re-arranging a lot of the equations and results in some lost precision, where relevant I've left comments to explain this. I don't think any of it is significant enough to justify doing post-processing in driver. Thanks a lot Jonathan and John Stultz for helping me out with this Changes since v2: * Add missing include (thanks kernel test robot :D) * Rework some confusing function return values, specifically rradc_read_status_in_cont_mode and rradc_prepare_batt_id_conversion both of which didn't correctly handle "ret". This also bought up an issue as the previous implementation didn't actually wait for the channel to be ready. It doesn't seem like that's strictly necessary (same data is reported if I wait for the status to be good or not) but I've included it anyway for good measure. Changes since v1: * Rework the RRADC driver based on Jonathan's feedback * Pick up Rob's reviewed by for the dt-binding patch. --- Caleb Connolly (9): spmi: add a helper to look up an SPMI device from a device node mfd: qcom-spmi-pmic: expose the PMIC revid information to clients mfd: qcom-spmi-pmic: read fab id on supported PMICs dt-bindings: iio: adc: document qcom-spmi-rradc iio: adc: qcom-spmi-rradc: introduce round robin adc arm64: dts: qcom: pmi8998: add rradc node arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: enable rradc arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-db845c: enable rradc arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-xiaomi-beryllium: enable rradc .../bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-rradc.yaml | 51 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/pmi8998.dtsi | 8 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-db845c.dts | 4 + .../boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 4 + .../boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-xiaomi-beryllium.dts | 4 + drivers/iio/adc/Kconfig | 12 + drivers/iio/adc/Makefile | 1 + drivers/iio/adc/qcom-spmi-rradc.c | 1021 +++++++++++++++++ drivers/mfd/qcom-spmi-pmic.c | 268 +++-- drivers/spmi/spmi.c | 17 + include/linux/spmi.h | 3 + include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h | 61 + 12 files changed, 1364 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-rradc.yaml create mode 100644 drivers/iio/adc/qcom-spmi-rradc.c create mode 100644 include/soc/qcom/qcom-spmi-pmic.h