lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] mfd: Add driver for RAVE Supervisory Processor
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Andrey Smirnov
<andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>>
>>> Add a driver for RAVE Supervisory Processor, an MCU implementing
>>> varoius bits of housekeeping functionality (watchdoging, backlight
>>> control, LED control, etc) on RAVE family of products by Zodiac
>>> Inflight Innovations.
>>>
>>> This driver implementes core MFD/serdev device as well as
>>> communication subroutines necessary for commanding the device.
>>>
>>> Cc: cphealy@gmail.com
>>> Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>
>>> Cc: Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@cogentembedded.com>
>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>>> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes since [v1]:
>>>
>>> - Fix MODULE_LICENSE to specify "GPL v2"
>>>
>>> - Fix a bug in rave_sp_get_status()
>>>
>>> - Use %zu to fix warning repored by kbuild test robot
>>>
>>> - Remove "status" properties from examples zii,rave-sp.txt as well as
>>> clarify the fact that device node is expected to be a child of a
>>> serial device node
>>>
>>> NOTE:
>>>
>>> * The driver for "zii,rave-sp-watchdog" exists, but I haven't
>>> submitted it yet, becuase I wanted to make sure that API exposed by
>>> this MFD is acceptable and doesn't need drastic changes
>>>
>>> * This driver is dependent on crc_ccitt_false() introduced in
>>> 2da9378d531f8cc6670c7497f20d936b706ab80b in 'linux-next'
>>>
>>>
>>> [v1] lkml.kernel.org/r/20170606180643.14258-1-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/zii,rave-sp.txt | 36 +
>>
>> This should be a separate patch.
>
> OK, will fix in v3.
>
>>
>>> drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 9 +
>>> drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c | 1009 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/rave-sp.h | 54 ++
>>> 5 files changed, 1109 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/zii,rave-sp.txt
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c
>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/rave-sp.h
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/zii,rave-sp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/zii,rave-sp.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..903c889
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/zii,rave-sp.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
>>> +Zodiac Inflight Innovations RAVE Supervisory Processor
>>> +
>>> +RAVE Supervisory Processor communicates with SoC over UART and is
>>> +presented to the kernel as a "serdev". Given that it is expected that
>>
>> Please revisit this sentence.
>>
>
> Just to make sure I understand you correctly we are talking about
> "Given that it is expected that", correct?
>
>>> +its device-tree node is specified as a child of a node corresponding
>>> +to UART controller used for communication.
>>
>> This is unusual. I believe we sometimes do this with I2C devices, but
>> we don't normally have the supported comms medium as the parent.
>>
>
> I don't think there's any other way to specify a "serdev" device. It
> has to be a child of corresponding serial controller. In that aspect
> it is no different from I2C device.
>
>>> +Required parent device properties:
>>> +
>>> + - compatible: Should be one of:
>>> + - "zii,rave-sp-niu"
>>> + - "zii,rave-sp-mezz"
>>> + - "zii,rave-sp-esb"
>>> + - "zii,rave-sp-rdu1"
>>> + - "zii,rave-sp-rdu2"
>>> +
>>> + - current-speed: Should be set to baud rate SP device is using
>>> +
>>> +RAVE SP consists of the following sub-devices:
>>> +
>>> +Device Description
>>> +------ -----------
>>> +rave-sp-wdt : Watchdog
>>
>> What else does it contain.
>>
>> MFDs always have more than one device.
>>
>
> It also exposes EEPROM, sensor/hwmon device, backlight driver, LED
> driver and an input device.
>
>>> +Example of usage:
>>> +
>>> + rdu {
>>
>> What is an RDU?
>>
>
> RDU stands for "removable display unit".
>
>>> + compatible = "zii,rave-sp-rdu2";
>>> + current-speed = <1000000>;
>>> +
>>> + watchdog {
>>> + compatible = "zii,rave-sp-watchdog";
>>> + };
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
>>> index 3eb5c93..6cab311 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
>>> @@ -867,6 +867,15 @@ config MFD_SPMI_PMIC
>>> Say M here if you want to include support for the SPMI PMIC
>>> series as a module. The module will be called "qcom-spmi-pmic".
>>>
>>> +config MFD_RAVE_SP
>>> + tristate "RAVE SP MCU core driver"
>>> + select MFD_CORE
>>> + select SERIAL_DEV_BUS
>>> + select CRC_CCITT
>>> + help
>>> + Select this to get support for the RAVE Supervisory
>>> + Processor driver
>>
>> Missing '.'.
>
> OK, will fix in v3.
>
>>
>>> config MFD_RDC321X
>>> tristate "RDC R-321x southbridge"
>>> select MFD_CORE
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Makefile b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
>>> index c16bf1e..bc3df0a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/Makefile
>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
>>> @@ -221,3 +221,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_SUN4I_GPADC) += sun4i-gpadc.o
>>>
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_STM32_TIMERS) += stm32-timers.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_MXS_LRADC) += mxs-lradc.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_RAVE_SP) += rave-sp.o
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c b/drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..41cdbd2
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,1009 @@
>>> +/*
>>> + * rave-sp.c - Multifunction core driver for Zodiac Inflight Innovations
>>
>> Drop the filename please, they have a habit of becoming incorrect
>>
>
> OK, will do in v3.
>
>>> + * SP MCU that is connected via dedicated UART port
>>> + *
>>> + * Copyright (C) 2017 Zodiac Inflight Innovations
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>> + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
>>> + * the License, or (at your option) any later version.
>>> + *
>>> + * 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.
>>> + *
>>> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>>> + * along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>>
>> Are you able to use the short version?
>>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "short version". Is it short version of
> GPL notice above?
>
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * UART protocol using following entities:
>>> + * - message to MCU => ACK response
>>> + * - event from MCU => event ACK
>>> + *
>>> + * Frame structure:
>>> + * <STX> <DATA> <CHECKSUM> <ETX>
>>> + * Where:
>>> + * - STX - is start of transmission character
>>> + * - ETX - end of transmission
>>> + * - DATA - payload
>>> + * - CHECKSUM - checksum calculated on <DATA>
>>> + *
>>> + * If <DATA> or <CHECKSUM> contain one of control characters, then it is
>>> + * escaped using <DLE> control code. Added <DLE> does not participate in
>>> + * checksum calculation.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +/* #define DEBUG */
>>
>> If you're going to do this, add a comment to the tune of:
>>
>> "Uncomment this to provide driver specific debugging."
>>
>
> That's a leftover I missed. Will remove in v3.
>
>>> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
>>> +#include <linux/crc-ccitt.h>
>>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>>> +#include <linux/export.h>
>>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>>> +#include <linux/serdev.h>
>>> +#include <linux/rave-sp.h>
>>> +
>>> +enum {
>>> + STX = 0x02,
>>> + ETX = 0x03,
>>> + DLE = 0x10,
>>> +};
>>
>> We usually prefix defines/enums.
>>
>
> OK, will do in v3.
>
>> Also these are not very human readable. Either improve the
>> nomenclature or add a comment/header.
>>
>
> OK, will add comments in v3.
>
>>> +enum {
>>> + RAVE_SP_BOOT_SOURCE_GET = 0,
>>> + RAVE_SP_BOOT_SOURCE_SET = 1,
>>> +
>>> + RAVE_SP_MAX_DATA_SIZE = 64,
>>> + RAVE_SP_CHECKSUM_SIZE = 2, /* Worst case scenariou on RDU2 */
>>> + /*
>>> + * We don't store STX, ETX and unescaped bytes, so Rx is only
>>> + * DATA + CSUM
>>> + */
>>> + RAVE_SP_RX_BUFFER_SIZE = RAVE_SP_MAX_DATA_SIZE +
>>> + RAVE_SP_CHECKSUM_SIZE,
>>> + RAVE_SP_STX_ETX_SIZE = 2,
>>> + /*
>>> + * For Tx we have to have space for everything, STX, EXT and
>>> + * potentially stuffed DATA + CSUM data + csum
>>> + */
>>> + RAVE_SP_TX_BUFFER_SIZE = RAVE_SP_STX_ETX_SIZE +
>>> + 2 * RAVE_SP_RX_BUFFER_SIZE,
>>> +};
>>
>> This format is unusual for an enum.
>>
>> These would better suit #includes I think.
>>
>
> Not sure what you mean here. You want me to move that enum into a header file?
>
>>> +enum rave_sp_deframer_state {
>>> + RAVE_SP_EXPECT_SOF,
>>> + RAVE_SP_EXPECT_DATA,
>>> + RAVE_SP_EXPECT_ESCAPED_DATA,
>>> +};
>>
>> It's normal to set the first attribute as 0.
>>
>> I can't remember what the C standard says about that.
>>
>
> It's initialized to 0 if no value is specified.
>
>>> +struct rave_sp_deframer {
>>> + enum rave_sp_deframer_state state;
>>> + unsigned char data[RAVE_SP_RX_BUFFER_SIZE];
>>> + size_t length;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct rave_sp_reply {
>>> + size_t length;
>>> + void *data;
>>> + u8 code;
>>> + u8 ackid;
>>> + struct completion received;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct rave_sp_checksum {
>>> + size_t length;
>>> + void (*subroutine)(const u8 *, size_t, u8 *);
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +enum rave_sp_boot_source {
>>> + RAVE_SP_BOOT_SOURCE_SD = 0,
>>> + RAVE_SP_BOOT_SOURCE_EMMC = 1,
>>> + RAVE_SP_BOOT_SOURCE_NOR = 2,
>>> +};
>>
>> Just set the first one. The C standard will do the rest.
>>
>
> Those correspond to values specified in device's ICD, so I specified
> all of the values explicitly to make it easier to compare against the
> documentation. I'll change it if you insist, but my preference would
> be to keep it as is.
>
>>> +struct rave_sp_variant {
>>> + const struct rave_sp_checksum *checksum;
>>> +
>>> + struct {
>>> + int (*translate)(enum rave_sp_command);
>>> + int (*get_boot_source)(struct rave_sp *);
>>> + int (*set_boot_source)(struct rave_sp *,
>>> + enum rave_sp_boot_source);
>>> + } cmd;
>>
>> Declare this struct separately, then reference it.
>>
>
> OK, will fix in v3.
>
>>> + void (*init)(struct rave_sp *);
>>> +
>>> + struct attribute_group group;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct rave_sp {
>>> + struct serdev_device *serdev;
>>> +
>>> + struct rave_sp_deframer deframer;
>>> + atomic_t ackid;
>>> +
>>> + struct mutex bus_lock;
>>> + struct mutex reply_lock;
>>> + struct rave_sp_reply *reply;
>>> +
>>> + const char *part_number_firmware;
>>> + const char *part_number_bootloader;
>>> +
>>> + const char *reset_reason;
>>> + const char *copper_rev_rmb;
>>> + const char *copper_rev_deb;
>>> + const char *silicon_devid;
>>> + const char *silicon_devrev;
>>> +
>>> + const char *copper_mod_rmb;
>>> + const char *copper_mod_deb;
>>> +
>>> + const struct rave_sp_variant *variant;
>>> +
>>> + struct blocking_notifier_head event_notifier_list;
>>> +
>>> + struct attribute_group *group;
>>> +};
>>
>> This is going to require a kerneldoc header.
>>
>
> OK. Will fix in v3.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> I'm going to stop the review here. Looking at the rest of the code,
>> it looks like you're submitting to the wrong subsystem.
>>
>> Please consider submitting to drivers/platform instead.
>>
>
> Could you elaborate a bit more why you think this driver doesn't
> belong in MFD subsystem? My reasoning for putting it there was that
> it's a driver for a device that connects to SoC via a serial bus, it
> implements multiple distinct functions that are exposed to MFD cell
> drivers it creates via shared API. There seemed to be number of I2C
> devices in MFD that seem to be exactly that. Did I miss some crucial
> difference?
>

Lee, any chance you can let me know you thinking at least on that last
one, so we can move forward with this driver in some direction?

Thank you,
Andrey Smirnov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-29 20:53    [W:0.103 / U:0.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site