| Message ID | 1580730044-30501-5-git-send-email-hsin-hsiung.wang@mediatek.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add Support for MediaTek PMIC MT6358 | expand |
On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 19:40 +0800, Hsin-Hsiung Wang wrote: > From: Ran Bi <ran.bi@mediatek.com> > > This add support for the MediaTek MT6358 RTC. Driver using > compatible data to store different RTC_WRTGR address offset. > > Signed-off-by: Ran Bi <ran.bi@mediatek.com> > Signed-off-by: Hsin-Hsiung Wang <hsin-hsiung.wang@mediatek.com> > --- > drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++-------- > include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h | 16 +++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c > index 5249fc9..a90735e1 100644 > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c > @@ -9,18 +9,31 @@ > #include <linux/mfd/mt6397/core.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/mutex.h> > +#include <linux/of_device.h> > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > #include <linux/regmap.h> > #include <linux/rtc.h> > #include <linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h> > #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> > > +static const struct of_device_id mt6397_rtc_of_match[] = { > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6323-rtc", > + .data = (void *)&mt6397_rtc_data, }, > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6358-rtc", > + .data = (void *)&mt6358_rtc_data, }, > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6397-rtc", > + .data = (void *)&mt6397_rtc_data, }, > + {} > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6397_rtc_of_match); > + > static int mtk_rtc_write_trigger(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc) > { > int ret; > u32 data; > > - ret = regmap_write(rtc->regmap, rtc->addr_base + RTC_WRTGR, 1); > + ret = regmap_write(rtc->regmap, > + rtc->addr_base + rtc->data->wrtgr, 1); nit: fit in one line. <...> > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > index f84b916..fffe34a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > @@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ > #define RTC_BBPU_CBUSY BIT(6) > #define RTC_BBPU_KEY (0x43 << 8) > > -#define RTC_WRTGR 0x003c > +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6358 0x3a > +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 0x3c > > #define RTC_IRQ_STA 0x0002 > #define RTC_IRQ_STA_AL BIT(0) > @@ -57,6 +58,10 @@ > #define MTK_RTC_POLL_DELAY_US 10 > #define MTK_RTC_POLL_TIMEOUT (jiffies_to_usecs(HZ)) > > +struct mtk_rtc_data { > + u32 wrtgr; > +}; > + > struct mt6397_rtc { > struct device *dev; > struct rtc_device *rtc_dev; > @@ -66,6 +71,15 @@ struct mt6397_rtc { > struct regmap *regmap; > int irq; > u32 addr_base; > + const struct mtk_rtc_data *data; > +}; > + > +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6358_rtc_data = { > + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6358, > +}; > + > +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6397_rtc_data = { > + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6397, > }; Hi, Putting these in header file doesn't looks right to me. Who need this? can you move them back to rtc-mt6397.c? Joe.C
On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 00:50 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote: > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > index f84b916..fffe34a 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > @@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ > > #define RTC_BBPU_CBUSY BIT(6) > > #define RTC_BBPU_KEY (0x43 << 8) > > > > -#define RTC_WRTGR 0x003c > > +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6358 0x3a > > +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 0x3c > > > > #define RTC_IRQ_STA 0x0002 > > #define RTC_IRQ_STA_AL BIT(0) > > @@ -57,6 +58,10 @@ > > #define MTK_RTC_POLL_DELAY_US 10 > > #define MTK_RTC_POLL_TIMEOUT (jiffies_to_usecs(HZ)) > > > > +struct mtk_rtc_data { > > + u32 wrtgr; > > +}; > > + > > struct mt6397_rtc { > > struct device *dev; > > struct rtc_device *rtc_dev; > > @@ -66,6 +71,15 @@ struct mt6397_rtc { > > struct regmap *regmap; > > int irq; > > u32 addr_base; > > + const struct mtk_rtc_data *data; > > +}; > > + > > +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6358_rtc_data = { > > + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6358, > > +}; > > + > > +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6397_rtc_data = { > > + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6397, > > }; > > Hi, > > Putting these in header file doesn't looks right to me. > Who need this? can you move them back to rtc-mt6397.c? > > Joe.C > This could also effect kernel/drivers/power/reset/mt6323-poweroff.c which using same region of RTC registers. There are 2 ways of modification: 1. kernel/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c implement do_pwroff function and export to mt6323-poweroff.c 2. Just modify mt6323-poweroff.c file to compatible this patch. I mean using RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 to replace RTC_WRTGR. Or modify mt6323-poweroff.c like rtc-mt6397.c
Hi, On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:52 AM Ran Bi <ran.bi@mediatek.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 00:50 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > > index f84b916..fffe34a 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > > @@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ > > > #define RTC_BBPU_CBUSY BIT(6) > > > #define RTC_BBPU_KEY (0x43 << 8) > > > > > > -#define RTC_WRTGR 0x003c > > > +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6358 0x3a > > > +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 0x3c > > > > > > #define RTC_IRQ_STA 0x0002 > > > #define RTC_IRQ_STA_AL BIT(0) > > > @@ -57,6 +58,10 @@ > > > #define MTK_RTC_POLL_DELAY_US 10 > > > #define MTK_RTC_POLL_TIMEOUT (jiffies_to_usecs(HZ)) > > > > > > +struct mtk_rtc_data { > > > + u32 wrtgr; > > > +}; > > > + > > > struct mt6397_rtc { > > > struct device *dev; > > > struct rtc_device *rtc_dev; > > > @@ -66,6 +71,15 @@ struct mt6397_rtc { > > > struct regmap *regmap; > > > int irq; > > > u32 addr_base; > > > + const struct mtk_rtc_data *data; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6358_rtc_data = { > > > + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6358, > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6397_rtc_data = { > > > + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6397, > > > }; > > > > Hi, > > > > Putting these in header file doesn't looks right to me. > > Who need this? can you move them back to rtc-mt6397.c? > > Joe.C > > > > This could also effect kernel/drivers/power/reset/mt6323-poweroff.c > which using same region of RTC registers. > There are 2 ways of modification: > 1. kernel/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c implement do_pwroff function and > export to mt6323-poweroff.c > 2. Just modify mt6323-poweroff.c file to compatible this patch. I mean > using RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 to replace RTC_WRTGR. Or modify mt6323-poweroff.c > like rtc-mt6397.c Oh, I see, so basically both rtc-mt6397.c and mt6323-poweroff.c need to know at what offset RTC_WRTGR actually is. Correct? Is there any plan to have mt6323-poweroff.c support any of the other PMICs (not just MT6323?)? a. If not, I'd just add: #define RTC_WRTGR_MT6323 RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 in rtc.h, for added clarity, use that in mt6323-poweroff.c (s/RTC_WRTGR/RTC_WRTGR_MT6323/), and be done with it. Actually, even if there's a plan, you can go ahead with this simpler solution for now, and fix later when the issue comes up. b. If you ever want to support multiple PMICs with mt6323-poweroff.c, you'd need that offset for 2 different sub-devices under the same mfd, so the matching logic belongs in the main mfd device, not in rtc/poweroff driver. So I'd move the matching logic in drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c, and add rtc_wrtgr offset (or a full _data structure) to `struct mt6397_chip`, or, probably better, add a IORESOURCE_REG to the matching resources to specify the offset (that's what drivers/mfd/88pm860x-core.c seems to be doing, for example). And then mt6323-poweroff.c should probably be renamed to mt6397-poweroff.c. (actually, looking at this, I'm even questioning if mt6323-poweroff.c should even exist, and if you should just fold it into rtc-mt6397.c? Since they use the same registers?) Hope this makes sense? Best,
Hi, On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 20:59 +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:52 AM Ran Bi <ran.bi@mediatek.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 00:50 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote: > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > > > index f84b916..fffe34a 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h > > > > @@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ > > > > #define RTC_BBPU_CBUSY BIT(6) > > > > #define RTC_BBPU_KEY (0x43 << 8) > > > > > > > > -#define RTC_WRTGR 0x003c > > > > +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6358 0x3a > > > > +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 0x3c > > > > > > > > #define RTC_IRQ_STA 0x0002 > > > > #define RTC_IRQ_STA_AL BIT(0) > > > > @@ -57,6 +58,10 @@ > > > > #define MTK_RTC_POLL_DELAY_US 10 > > > > #define MTK_RTC_POLL_TIMEOUT (jiffies_to_usecs(HZ)) > > > > > > > > +struct mtk_rtc_data { > > > > + u32 wrtgr; > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > struct mt6397_rtc { > > > > struct device *dev; > > > > struct rtc_device *rtc_dev; > > > > @@ -66,6 +71,15 @@ struct mt6397_rtc { > > > > struct regmap *regmap; > > > > int irq; > > > > u32 addr_base; > > > > + const struct mtk_rtc_data *data; > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6358_rtc_data = { > > > > + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6358, > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6397_rtc_data = { > > > > + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6397, > > > > }; > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Putting these in header file doesn't looks right to me. > > > Who need this? can you move them back to rtc-mt6397.c? > > > Joe.C > > > > > > > This could also effect kernel/drivers/power/reset/mt6323-poweroff.c > > which using same region of RTC registers. > > There are 2 ways of modification: > > 1. kernel/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c implement do_pwroff function and > > export to mt6323-poweroff.c > > 2. Just modify mt6323-poweroff.c file to compatible this patch. I mean > > using RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 to replace RTC_WRTGR. Or modify mt6323-poweroff.c > > like rtc-mt6397.c > > Oh, I see, so basically both rtc-mt6397.c and mt6323-poweroff.c need > to know at what offset RTC_WRTGR actually is. Correct? > Yes, you are right both drivers need to know RTC_WRTGR offset. Offsets of other registers are the same. > Is there any plan to have mt6323-poweroff.c support any of the other > PMICs (not just MT6323?)? > Currently, we don't have a plan to let mt6323-poweroff.c support other PMICs. Because other PMICs like mt6397 and mt6358 could using arm-trust-firmware PSCI power off flow instead. mt6323-poweroff.c was prepared for platform without arm-trust-firmware. > a. If not, I'd just add: > #define RTC_WRTGR_MT6323 RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 > in rtc.h, for added clarity, use that in mt6323-poweroff.c > (s/RTC_WRTGR/RTC_WRTGR_MT6323/), and be done with it. > I would just change RTC_WRTGR to RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 in mt6323-poweroff.c at next patchset. > Actually, even if there's a plan, you can go ahead with this simpler > solution for now, and fix later when the issue comes up. > > b. If you ever want to support multiple PMICs with mt6323-poweroff.c, > you'd need that offset for 2 different sub-devices under the same mfd, > so the matching logic belongs in the main mfd device, not in > rtc/poweroff driver. > > So I'd move the matching logic in drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c, and add > rtc_wrtgr offset (or a full _data structure) to `struct mt6397_chip`, > or, probably better, add a IORESOURCE_REG to the matching resources to > specify the offset (that's what drivers/mfd/88pm860x-core.c seems to > be doing, for example). > > And then mt6323-poweroff.c should probably be renamed to mt6397-poweroff.c. > > (actually, looking at this, I'm even questioning if mt6323-poweroff.c > should even exist, and if you should just fold it into rtc-mt6397.c? > Since they use the same registers?) > mt6323-poweroff.c which hijack pm_power_off pointer is only for platform without arm-trust-firmware. This is the reason I am considering mt6323-poweroff.c should not be folded into rtc-mt6397.c. > Hope this makes sense? > > Best, Thanks for your suggestions. Best,
On Thu, 2020-03-05 at 15:37 +0800, Ran Bi wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 20:59 +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:52 AM Ran Bi <ran.bi@mediatek.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2020-02-04 at 00:50 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote: <....> > > > > > > > > Putting these in header file doesn't looks right to me. > > > > Who need this? can you move them back to rtc-mt6397.c? > > > > Joe.C > > > > > > > > > > This could also effect kernel/drivers/power/reset/mt6323-poweroff.c > > > which using same region of RTC registers. > > > There are 2 ways of modification: > > > 1. kernel/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c implement do_pwroff function and > > > export to mt6323-poweroff.c > > > 2. Just modify mt6323-poweroff.c file to compatible this patch. I mean > > > using RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 to replace RTC_WRTGR. Or modify mt6323-poweroff.c > > > like rtc-mt6397.c > > > > Oh, I see, so basically both rtc-mt6397.c and mt6323-poweroff.c need > > to know at what offset RTC_WRTGR actually is. Correct? > > > > Yes, you are right both drivers need to know RTC_WRTGR offset. Offsets > of other registers are the same. > > > Is there any plan to have mt6323-poweroff.c support any of the other > > PMICs (not just MT6323?)? > > > > Currently, we don't have a plan to let mt6323-poweroff.c support other > PMICs. Because other PMICs like mt6397 and mt6358 could using > arm-trust-firmware PSCI power off flow instead. mt6323-poweroff.c was > prepared for platform without arm-trust-firmware. This depends on SoC instead of PMIC. We will need mt6323-poweroff.c for soc with armv7 CPU, because we won't have ATF on them. I'm not aware of new plan for this. > > a. If not, I'd just add: > > #define RTC_WRTGR_MT6323 RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 > > in rtc.h, for added clarity, use that in mt6323-poweroff.c > > (s/RTC_WRTGR/RTC_WRTGR_MT6323/), and be done with it. > > > > I would just change RTC_WRTGR to RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 in mt6323-poweroff.c > at next patchset. > > > Actually, even if there's a plan, you can go ahead with this simpler > > solution for now, and fix later when the issue comes up. > > > > b. If you ever want to support multiple PMICs with mt6323-poweroff.c, > > you'd need that offset for 2 different sub-devices under the same mfd, > > so the matching logic belongs in the main mfd device, not in > > rtc/poweroff driver. > > > > So I'd move the matching logic in drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c, and add > > rtc_wrtgr offset (or a full _data structure) to `struct mt6397_chip`, > > or, probably better, add a IORESOURCE_REG to the matching resources to > > specify the offset (that's what drivers/mfd/88pm860x-core.c seems to > > be doing, for example). > > > > And then mt6323-poweroff.c should probably be renamed to mt6397-poweroff.c. > > > > (actually, looking at this, I'm even questioning if mt6323-poweroff.c > > should even exist, and if you should just fold it into rtc-mt6397.c? > > Since they use the same registers?) > > > > mt6323-poweroff.c which hijack pm_power_off pointer is only for platform > without arm-trust-firmware. This is the reason I am considering > mt6323-poweroff.c should not be folded into rtc-mt6397.c. Using/sharing same set of registers from different drivers is not good: - WRTGR is a special register to 'commit' previous changes. If 2 drivers are running at the same time, it is possible to commit incomplete update and cause unexpected result. It is easier to control this from same driver. - It is easy to overlook the register is access by others and lead to bugs/build fails when doing driver update, eg, this patchset. - The trigger code is duplicate in mt6323-poweroff.c, can just call mtk_rtc_write_trigger. So I agree with Nicolas, mt6323-poweroff should be folded into rtc-mt6397.c. We should be able to disable pm_power_off hijacking for platform with armV8 CPU. Maybe we can keep "mediatek,mt6323-pwrc" compatible in mt6323-poweroff.c for this. I'm ok with implement a. as suggested by Nicolas for now. Joe.C
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c index 5249fc9..a90735e1 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c @@ -9,18 +9,31 @@ #include <linux/mfd/mt6397/core.h> #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/mutex.h> +#include <linux/of_device.h> #include <linux/platform_device.h> #include <linux/regmap.h> #include <linux/rtc.h> #include <linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h> #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> +static const struct of_device_id mt6397_rtc_of_match[] = { + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6323-rtc", + .data = (void *)&mt6397_rtc_data, }, + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6358-rtc", + .data = (void *)&mt6358_rtc_data, }, + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6397-rtc", + .data = (void *)&mt6397_rtc_data, }, + {} +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6397_rtc_of_match); + static int mtk_rtc_write_trigger(struct mt6397_rtc *rtc) { int ret; u32 data; - ret = regmap_write(rtc->regmap, rtc->addr_base + RTC_WRTGR, 1); + ret = regmap_write(rtc->regmap, + rtc->addr_base + rtc->data->wrtgr, 1); if (ret < 0) return ret; @@ -258,6 +271,9 @@ static int mtk_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); rtc->addr_base = res->start; + rtc->data = (struct mtk_rtc_data *) + of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev); + rtc->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); if (rtc->irq < 0) return rtc->irq; @@ -322,13 +338,6 @@ static int mt6397_rtc_resume(struct device *dev) static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(mt6397_pm_ops, mt6397_rtc_suspend, mt6397_rtc_resume); -static const struct of_device_id mt6397_rtc_of_match[] = { - { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6323-rtc", }, - { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6397-rtc", }, - { } -}; -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt6397_rtc_of_match); - static struct platform_driver mtk_rtc_driver = { .driver = { .name = "mt6397-rtc", diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h index f84b916..fffe34a 100644 --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6397/rtc.h @@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ #define RTC_BBPU_CBUSY BIT(6) #define RTC_BBPU_KEY (0x43 << 8) -#define RTC_WRTGR 0x003c +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6358 0x3a +#define RTC_WRTGR_MT6397 0x3c #define RTC_IRQ_STA 0x0002 #define RTC_IRQ_STA_AL BIT(0) @@ -57,6 +58,10 @@ #define MTK_RTC_POLL_DELAY_US 10 #define MTK_RTC_POLL_TIMEOUT (jiffies_to_usecs(HZ)) +struct mtk_rtc_data { + u32 wrtgr; +}; + struct mt6397_rtc { struct device *dev; struct rtc_device *rtc_dev; @@ -66,6 +71,15 @@ struct mt6397_rtc { struct regmap *regmap; int irq; u32 addr_base; + const struct mtk_rtc_data *data; +}; + +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6358_rtc_data = { + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6358, +}; + +static const struct mtk_rtc_data mt6397_rtc_data = { + .wrtgr = RTC_WRTGR_MT6397, }; #endif /* _LINUX_MFD_MT6397_RTC_H_ */