Re: [PATCH v8 2/8] mfd: bd70528: Support ROHM bd70528 PMIC - core

[Lee Jones]

On Fri, 08 Feb 2019, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> Hello Lee,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:57:43AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > 
> > > This is needed by both RTC and WDT drivers as RTC driver must stop the
> > > WDT when it sets RTC. WDT HW is using RTC counter and might trigger
> > > timeout/reset when RTC is set. Options are to dublicate the
> > > enable/disable to both drivers or to export a function or share a
> > > function pointer. I didn't want dublication or dependency between RTC
> > > and WDT drivers. Thus I thought that MFD is best place for this code as
> > > both RTC and WDT require it anyways. Perhaps this should be commented
> > > here?
> > 
> > I think an exported function with comments would be better.
> 
> So do you mean you would prefer exported function over the pointer from

Yes please.  Call-back pointers for non-subsystem level actions are a
bit messy IMHO.

> MFD? I guess I can do it but I would still like to keep the code in the
> MFD as I would rather not introduce dependency from WDT driver to RTC or
> other way around. I can easily think of cases where WDT or RTC drivers
> would be unnecessary and user might want to drop one of them out of

Sounds fine.

> configuration. And I wonder if export actually makes any real
> improvement as we need to share the mutex between RTC and WDT anyways.

They all (parent (MFD), RTC and WDT) have shared data anyway.

> > [...]
> > 
> > > > > +	irqs[BD70528_INT_GPIO3].type.type_reg_offset = 6;
> > > > > +	irqs[BD70528_INT_GPIO3].type.type_rising_val = 0x20;
> > > > > +	irqs[BD70528_INT_GPIO3].type.type_falling_val = 0x10;
> > > > > +	irqs[BD70528_INT_GPIO3].type.type_level_high_val = 0x40;
> > > > > +	irqs[BD70528_INT_GPIO3].type.type_level_low_val = 0x50;
> > > > > +	irqs[BD70528_INT_GPIO3].type.types_supported = (IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH |
> > > > > +				IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW);
> > > > 
> > > > Could you please explain:
> > > > 
> > > > a) what you're doing here
> > > 
> > > Regmap-irq gained support for type-setting. On bd70528 the type setting
> > > makes sense only for GPIO interrupts - so we must not populate type
> > > setting information for the rest of the IRQs. The macro REGMAP_IRQ_REG
> > > is nice and makes the irq struct initialization cleaner. Thus it is used.
> > > It does not allow populating the type information - hence we do it here.
> > > 
> > > I can change this if you think some other way would be cleaner?
> > 
> > It's pretty fugly.  Can the REGMAP_IRQ_REG be expanded upon?
> 
> I was thinking of that but for vast majority of REGMAP_IRQ_REG users
> initializing type regs would be just unnecessary burden (giving 6
> zeroes for unsupported fields for each IRQ gets dull quite soon) I

No, I don't mean edit REGMAP_IRQ_REG directly.  I'm proposing to
create another, separate MACRO based on REGMAP_IRQ_REG.

> was also thinking of adding another macro to be used in cases where
> we have type setting supported - but macros with 9 parameters won't fit
> on a line and (in my opinion) will not bring much improvement over
> plain assignment.

I think a 2 line MACRO is better than the current imp.

> > > > b) why you don't mass assign them
> > > >     - seeing as most of the data is identical.
> > > 
> > > Maybe I am a bit slow today - but I don't know how the 'mass assignment'
> > > should be done?
> > 
> > Something like (completely untested):
> > 
> > unsigned int type_reg_offset_inc = 0;
> > for (i = BD70528_INT_GPIO0; i <=  BD70528_INT_GPIO3; i++) {
> > 	irqs[i].type.type_reg_offset     = type_reg_offset_inc;
> > 	irqs[i].type.type_rising_val     = 0x20;
> > 	irqs[i].type.type_falling_val    = 0x10;
> > 	irqs[i].type.type_level_high_val = 0x40;
> > 	irqs[i].type.type_level_low_val  = 0x50;
> > 	irqs[i].type.types_supported =
> > 		(IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW);
> > 	type_reg_offset_inc += 2;
> > }
> 
> Right. I did this this morning =)
> 
> > It's still fugly though.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> > If we can do this via MACROs, it would be better.
> 
> I just dont see how to do a nice macro for this. Truth is that there is
> 6 fields to initialize - and the values can't be guessed so each value
> needs to be given. In best case the macro can somewhat shorten the
> assignment (but no way it'd still fit nicely on one row) - in worst

Don't get hung up on MACROS existing on a single line.

> case it just hides the meaning of values we are passing as arguments.
> With raw assignment we at least have some idea what the 0x40 or 0x20 are
> referring to =)

Well I do agree with your last comment.

Maybe doing the following would help with the ugliness (i.e. the shear
number of chars):

 unsigned int type_reg_offset_inc = 0;
 for (i = BD70528_INT_GPIO0; i <=  BD70528_INT_GPIO3; i++) {
        <blar> *t = irqs[i].type;
        t->type_reg_offset     = type_reg_offset_inc;
 	t->type_rising_val     = 0x20;
 	t->type_falling_val    = 0x10;
 	t->type_level_high_val = 0x40;
 	t->type_level_low_val  = 0x50;
 	t->types_supported =
 		(IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW);
 	type_reg_offset_inc += 2;
 }

> > > > > +struct bd70528 {
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * Please keep this as the first member here as some
> > > > > +	 * drivers (clk) supporting more than one chip may only know this
> > > > > +	 * generic struct 'struct rohm_regmap_dev' and assume it is
> > > > > +	 * the first chunk of parent device's private data.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	struct rohm_regmap_dev chip;
> > > > > +	/* wdt_set must be called rtc_timer_lock held */
> > > > 
> > > > This doesn't make sense.
> > > 
> > > Umm.. The comment does not make sense? Maybe I can explain it further.
> > 
> > "wdt_set must be called when the rtc_timer_lock is held"
> 
> Yes. I wanted to say that who-ever is calling the wdt_set function
> below, should have locked the rtc_timer_lock mutex (last in this
> struct). The function does not do locking inside because we want the RTC
> to be able to perform:
> 
> lock
> disable wdt (store original state)
> set RTC
> return wdt original state
> unlock
> 
> Locking is needed so that we can exclude the watchdog enabling or
> disabling the WDT timer between moments when RTC is getting the original
> WDT state and re-turning back the old state. Without the lock we have a
> risk that WDT-driver enables or disables the timer when RTC is being
> set, and RTC overwrites the watchdog driver changes when writing back
> the old state. I hope this makes sense now... Any suggestions how to
> explain this nicely in english?

I think I did already:

 "wdt_set must be called when the rtc_timer_lock is held"

Actually, this is a little ambiguous.  A better sentence could read:

 "rtc_timer_lock must be taken before calling wdt_set()"
 
-- 
Lee Jones [æçæ]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog