lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 06/10] mfd: Add support for the MediaTek MT6358 PMIC
From
Date
Hi,

On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 16:06 +0800, Pi-Hsun Shih wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:46 AM Hsin-Hsiung Wang
> <hsin-hsiung.wang@mediatek.com> wrote:
> >
> > This adds support for the MediaTek MT6358 PMIC. This is a
> > multifunction device with the following sub modules:
> >
> > - Regulator
> > - RTC
> > - Codec
> > - Interrupt
> >
> > It is interfaced to the host controller using SPI interface
> > by a proprietary hardware called PMIC wrapper or pwrap.
> > MT6358 MFD is a child device of the pwrap.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hsin-Hsiung Wang <hsin-hsiung.wang@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 3 +-
> > drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c | 231 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c | 52 ++++++-
> > include/linux/mfd/mt6358/core.h | 158 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/mfd/mt6358/registers.h | 282 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/mfd/mt6397/core.h | 3 +
> > 6 files changed, 727 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c
> > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/mt6358/core.h
> > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/mt6358/registers.h
> > (...)
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..760b72f
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +//
> > +// Copyright (c) 2019 MediaTek Inc.
...
> > +static void pmic_irq_sync_unlock(struct irq_data *data)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int i, top_gp, en_reg, int_regs, shift;
> > + struct mt6397_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> > + struct pmic_irq_data *irqd = chip->irq_data;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < irqd->num_pmic_irqs; i++) {
> > + if (irqd->enable_hwirq[i] == irqd->cache_hwirq[i])
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + /* Find out the irq group */
> > + top_gp = 0;
> > + while ((top_gp + 1) < ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_ints) &&
> > + i >= mt6358_ints[top_gp + 1].hwirq_base)
> > + top_gp++;
> > +
> > + if (top_gp >= ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_ints)) {
>
> Would this condition ever be true? The while loop before this always
> break when top_gp == ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_ints) - 1.
>

Thanks for reviewing. I will remove this part in next patch.

> > + mutex_unlock(&chip->irqlock);
> > + dev_err(chip->dev,
> > + "Failed to get top_group: %d\n", top_gp);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Find the irq registers */
> > + int_regs = (i - mt6358_ints[top_gp].hwirq_base) /
> > + MT6358_REG_WIDTH;
> > + en_reg = mt6358_ints[top_gp].en_reg +
> > + mt6358_ints[top_gp].en_reg_shift * int_regs;
> > + shift = (i - mt6358_ints[top_gp].hwirq_base) % MT6358_REG_WIDTH;
> > + regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap, en_reg, BIT(shift),
> > + irqd->enable_hwirq[i] << shift);
> > + irqd->cache_hwirq[i] = irqd->enable_hwirq[i];
> > + }
> > + mutex_unlock(&chip->irqlock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct irq_chip mt6358_irq_chip = {
> > + .name = "mt6358-irq",
> > + .flags = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE,
> > + .irq_enable = pmic_irq_enable,
> > + .irq_disable = pmic_irq_disable,
> > + .irq_bus_lock = pmic_irq_lock,
> > + .irq_bus_sync_unlock = pmic_irq_sync_unlock,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void mt6358_irq_sp_handler(struct mt6397_chip *chip,
> > + unsigned int top_gp)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int sta_reg, irq_status;
> > + unsigned int hwirq, virq;
> > + int ret, i, j;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < mt6358_ints[top_gp].num_int_regs; i++) {
> > + sta_reg = mt6358_ints[top_gp].sta_reg +
> > + mt6358_ints[top_gp].sta_reg_shift * i;
> > + ret = regmap_read(chip->regmap, sta_reg, &irq_status);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev,
> > + "Failed to read irq status: %d\n", ret);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!irq_status)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + for (j = 0; j < MT6358_REG_WIDTH ; j++) {
> > + if ((irq_status & BIT(j)) == 0)
> > + continue;
> > + hwirq = mt6358_ints[top_gp].hwirq_base +
> > + MT6358_REG_WIDTH * i + j;
> > + virq = irq_find_mapping(chip->irq_domain, hwirq);
> > + if (virq)
> > + handle_nested_irq(virq);
> > + }
> > +
> > + regmap_write(chip->regmap, sta_reg, irq_status);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static irqreturn_t mt6358_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct mt6397_chip *chip = data;
> > + struct pmic_irq_data *mt6358_irq_data = chip->irq_data;
> > + unsigned int top_irq_status;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_read(chip->regmap,
> > + mt6358_irq_data->top_int_status_reg,
> > + &top_irq_status);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "Can't read TOP_INT_STATUS ret=%d\n", ret);
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < mt6358_irq_data->num_top; i++) {
> > + if (top_irq_status & BIT(mt6358_ints[i].top_offset))
> > + mt6358_irq_sp_handler(chip, i);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int pmic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
> > + irq_hw_number_t hw)
> > +{
> > + struct mt6397_chip *mt6397 = d->host_data;
> > +
> > + irq_set_chip_data(irq, mt6397);
> > + irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &mt6358_irq_chip, handle_level_irq);
> > + irq_set_nested_thread(irq, 1);
> > + irq_set_noprobe(irq);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct irq_domain_ops mt6358_irq_domain_ops = {
> > + .map = pmic_irq_domain_map,
> > + .xlate = irq_domain_xlate_twocell,
> > +};
> > +
> > +int mt6358_irq_init(struct mt6397_chip *chip)
> > +{
> > + int i, j, ret;
> > + struct pmic_irq_data *irqd;
> > +
> > + irqd = devm_kzalloc(chip->dev, sizeof(struct pmic_irq_data *),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!irqd)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + chip->irq_data = irqd;
> > +
> > + mutex_init(&chip->irqlock);
> > + irqd->top_int_status_reg = MT6358_TOP_INT_STATUS0;
> > + irqd->num_pmic_irqs = MT6358_IRQ_NR;
> > + irqd->num_top = ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_ints);
>
> ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_ints) is still used in pmic_irq_sync_unlock. Is this
> variable needed, or should the ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_ints) in
> pmic_irq_sync_unlock be changed to irqd->num_top too?
>

I will update to irqd->num_top from ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_ints) in
pmic_irq_sync_unlock.

> > +
> > + irqd->enable_hwirq = devm_kcalloc(chip->dev,
> > + irqd->num_pmic_irqs,
> > + sizeof(bool),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!irqd->enable_hwirq)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + irqd->cache_hwirq = devm_kcalloc(chip->dev,
> > + irqd->num_pmic_irqs,
> > + sizeof(bool),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!irqd->cache_hwirq)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + /* Disable all interrupts for initializing */
> > + for (i = 0; i < irqd->num_top; i++) {
> > + for (j = 0; j < mt6358_ints[i].num_int_regs; j++)
> > + regmap_write(chip->regmap,
> > + mt6358_ints[i].en_reg +
> > + mt6358_ints[i].en_reg_shift * j, 0);
> > + }
> > +
> > + chip->irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(chip->dev->of_node,
> > + irqd->num_pmic_irqs,
> > + &mt6358_irq_domain_ops, chip);
> > + if (!chip->irq_domain) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "could not create IRQ domain\n");
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(chip->dev, chip->irq, NULL,
> > + mt6358_irq_handler, IRQF_ONESHOT,
> > + mt6358_irq_chip.name, chip);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to register irq=%d; err: %d\n",
> > + chip->irq, ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + enable_irq_wake(chip->irq);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > (...)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-06 09:57    [W:0.067 / U:5.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site