lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
Date
Hi Marek,

On 24 May 2018 @ 12:49 Steve Twiss wrote:

> To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>; Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>; Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
>
> Thanks Marek,
>
> > On 23 May 2018 12:43 Marek Vasut wrote,
> >
> > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>; Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>;
> > Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>; Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>; Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>; linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: [PATCH 6/6] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support
> >
> > Add support for DA9063L, which is a reduced variant of the DA9063 with less regulators and without RTC.
> >
>
> There's potentially more to this file. Without an RTC the regmap access tables would change
> and the usual DA9063 (BB silicon) tables would become invalid.
> The tables for da9063_bb_readable_ranges, da9063_bb_writeable_ranges, da9063_bb_volatile_ranges,
> would need to be updated for DA9063L, if a new chip model was needed.
>
> The new ranges would be this (see below), and would remove any RTC accesses in the new chip model.
>
> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_readable_ranges[] = {
> {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_T_OFFSET,
> .range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_CHIP_ID,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_CHIP_VARIANT,
> },
> };
>
> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_writeable_ranges[] = {
> {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_FAULT_LOG,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_VSYS_MON,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_ID_32_31,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ_A,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_AUTO3_LOW,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_CONFIG_I,
> .range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_4,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_0,
> .range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_GP_ID_19,
> },
> };
>
> static const struct regmap_range da9063l_bb_volatile_ranges[] = {
> {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_PAGE_CON,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_A,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_B,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_E,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_CONTROL_F,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_BCORE2_CONT,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_LDO11_CONT,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_DVC_1,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_ADC_MAN,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_ADC_RES_L,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_MON_A10_RES,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_SEQ,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
> .range_max = DA9063_REG_EN_32K,
> }, {
> .range_min = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_5,
> .range_max = DA9063_BB_REG_MON_REG_6,
> },
> };
>
> However this is a larger and more wide-ranging change compared to the one proposed by Marek,
> and would require other alterations to fit this in. Also I'm undecided to what it would really add
> apart from a new chip model: I have been told accessing the DA9063 RTC register locations has no
> effect in the DA9063L.

Looking at this further, there is also a new IRQ regmap.
Again this comes down to whether a full chip model is needed or not. If not, then the IRQ map does not
need to be changed as given. Otherwise the removal of the following:

[DA9063_IRQ_ALARM] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_ALARM,
},
[DA9063_IRQ_TICK] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_TICK,
},

prior to registering the IRQs in the chip model would be needed.
The new regmap_irq would be:

static const struct regmap_irq da9063l_irqs[] = {
/* DA9063 event A register */
[DA9063L_IRQ_ONKEY] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_ONKEY,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_ADC_RDY] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_ADC_RDY,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_SEQ_RDY] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_A_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_SEQ_RDY,
},
/* DA9063 event B register */
[DA9063L_IRQ_WAKE] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_B_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_WAKE,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_TEMP] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_B_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_TEMP,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_COMP_1V2] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_B_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_COMP_1V2,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_LDO_LIM] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_B_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_LDO_LIM,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_REG_UVOV] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_B_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_UVOV,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_DVC_RDY] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_B_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_DVC_RDY,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_VDD_MON] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_B_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_VDD_MON,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_WARN] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_B_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_VDD_WARN,
},
/* DA9063 event C register */
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI0] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_C_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI0,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI1] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_C_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI1,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI2] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_C_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI2,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI3] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_C_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI3,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI4] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_C_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI4,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI5] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_C_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI5,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI6] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_C_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI6,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI7] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_C_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI7,
},
/* DA9063 event D register */
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI8] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI8,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI9] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI9,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI10] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI10,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI11] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI11,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI12] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI12,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI13] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI13,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI14] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI14,
},
[DA9063L_IRQ_GPI15] = {
.reg_offset = DA9063_REG_EVENT_D_OFFSET,
.mask = DA9063_M_GPI15,
},
};

Regards,
Steve

>
> If the maintainers are happy with this, and if a chip model addition is really needed in future it can
> be added later if required.
>
> Acked-by: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>
>
> Regards,
> Steve

> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>
> > Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
> > Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c index
> > 5544ce8e3363..84bbd2bbcd2a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
> > @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ static struct regmap_config da9063_regmap_config =
> > {
> >
> > static const struct of_device_id da9063_dt_ids[] = {
> > { .compatible = "dlg,da9063", },
> > + { .compatible = "dlg,da9063l", },
> > { }
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, da9063_dt_ids); @@ -282,6 +283,7 @@ static
> > int da9063_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> >
> > static const struct i2c_device_id da9063_i2c_id[] = {
> > { "da9063", PMIC_TYPE_DA9063 },
> > + { "da9063l", PMIC_TYPE_DA9063L },
> > {},
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, da9063_i2c_id);
> > --
> > 2.16.2

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-24 14:33    [W:0.089 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site