[RFC PATCH 05/11] mfd: omap: control: core system control driver
Shilimkar, Santosh
santosh.shilimkar at ti.com
Mon May 28 09:15:16 EDT 2012
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Eduardo Valentin
<eduardo.valentin at ti.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 03:24:01PM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Eduardo Valentin
>> <eduardo.valentin at ti.com> wrote:
>> > This patch introduces a MFD core device driver for
>> > OMAP system control module.
>> >
>> > The control module allows software control of
>> > various static modes supported by the device. It is
>> > composed of two control submodules: general control
>> > module and device (padconfiguration) control
>> > module.
>> >
>> > In this patch, the children defined are for:
>> > . USB-phy pin control
>> > . Bangap temperature sensor
>> >
>> > Device driver is probed with postcore_initcall.
>> > However, as some of the APIs exposed by this driver
>> > may be needed in very early init phase, an early init
>> > class is also available: "early_omap_control".
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: J Keerthy <j-keerthy at ti.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon at ti.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin at ti.com>
>> > ---
>>
>> [..]
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/Kconfig b/arch/arm/plat-omap/Kconfig
>> > index ad95c7a..222dbad 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/Kconfig
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/Kconfig
>> > @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ menu "TI OMAP Common Features"
>> > config ARCH_OMAP_OTG
>> > bool
>> >
>> > +config ARCH_HAS_CONTROL_MODULE
>> > + bool
>> > +
>> Thanks for getting rid of OMAP CONFIG here.
>
> OK. ARCH_HAS_CONTROL_MODULE is a bit too generic though..
>
>>
>> > choice
>> > prompt "OMAP System Type"
>> > default ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
>> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
>> > index 11e4438..25a66d8 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
>> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
>> > @@ -795,6 +795,15 @@ config MFD_WL1273_CORE
>> > driver connects the radio-wl1273 V4L2 module and the wl1273
>> > audio codec.
>> >
>> > +config MFD_OMAP_CONTROL
>> > + bool "Texas Instruments OMAP System control module"
>> > + depends on ARCH_HAS_CONTROL_MODULE
>> > + help
>> > + This is the core driver for system control module. This driver
>> > + is responsible for creating the control module mfd child,
>> > + like USB-pin control, pin muxing, MMC-pbias and DDR IO dynamic
>> > + change for off mode.
>> > +
>> > config MFD_OMAP_USB_HOST
>> > bool "Support OMAP USBHS core driver"
>> > depends on USB_EHCI_HCD_OMAP || USB_OHCI_HCD_OMAP3
>> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Makefile b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
>> > index 05fa538..00f99d6 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/mfd/Makefile
>> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/Makefile
>> > @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_TPS6586X) += tps6586x.o
>> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_VX855) += vx855.o
>> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_WL1273_CORE) += wl1273-core.o
>> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_CS5535) += cs5535-mfd.o
>> > +obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_OMAP_CONTROL) += omap-control-core.o
>> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_OMAP_USB_HOST) += omap-usb-host.o
>> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_PM8921_CORE) += pm8921-core.o
>> > obj-$(CONFIG_MFD_PM8XXX_IRQ) += pm8xxx-irq.o
>> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/omap-control-core.c b/drivers/mfd/omap-control-core.c
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 0000000..7d8d408
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/omap-control-core.c
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
>> > +/*
>> > + * OMAP system control module driver file
>> > + *
>> > + * Copyright (C) 2011-2012 Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com/
>> > + * Contacts:
>> > + * Based on original code written by:
>> > + * J Keerthy <j-keerthy at ti.com>
>> > + * Moiz Sonasath <m-sonasath at ti.com>
>> > + * MFD clean up and re-factoring:
>> > + * Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin at ti.com>
>> > + *
>> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> > + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
>> > + * version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> > + *
>> > + * 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.
>> > + *
>> > + */
>> > +
>> > +#include <linux/module.h>
>> > +#include <linux/export.h>
>> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> > +#include <linux/io.h>
>> > +#include <linux/err.h>
>> > +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
>> > +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>> > +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
>> > +#include <linux/mfd/omap_control.h>
>> > +
>> > +static struct omap_control *omap_control_module;
>> > +
>> > +/**
>> > + * omap_control_readl: Read a single omap control module register.
>> > + *
>> > + * @dev: device to read from.
>> > + * @reg: register to read.
>> > + * @val: output with register value.
>> > + *
>> > + * returns 0 on success or -EINVAL in case struct device is invalid.
>> > + */
>> > +int omap_control_readl(struct device *dev, u32 reg, u32 *val)
>> > +{
>> > + struct omap_control *omap_control = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> > +
>> > + if (!omap_control)
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > +
>> > + *val = readl(omap_control->base + reg);
>> > +
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(omap_control_readl);
>> > +
>> I might have missed in the last scan, but can you let
>> function return the register value.
>
> Why?
>
Because thats how typical read 1 value kind of functions
look like..
>>
>> I am guessing, you did this for error case handling. You might
>> want to stick to read API semantic and just have WARN_ON()
>> to take care of error case.
>
> Yeah, that was for error handling and to do not confuse register
> values with error values.
>
No strong opinion if you like it that way but it just appeared odd to
me from a caller perspective.
>>
>> > +/**
>> > + * omap_control_writel: Write a single omap control module register.
>> > + *
>> > + * @dev: device to read from.
>> > + * @val: value to write.
>> > + * @reg: register to write to.
>> > + *
>> > + * returns 0 on success or -EINVAL in case struct device is invalid.
>> > + */
>> > +int omap_control_writel(struct device *dev, u32 val, u32 reg)
>> > +{
>> > + struct omap_control *omap_control = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> > + unsigned long flags;
>> > +
>> > + if (!omap_control)
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > +
>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&omap_control->reg_lock, flags);
>> > + writel(val, omap_control->base + reg);
>> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&omap_control->reg_lock, flags);
>> > +
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(omap_control_writel);
>> > +
>> > +/**
>> > + * omap_control_get: returns the control module device pinter
>> > + *
>> > + * The modules which has to use control module API's to read or write should
>> > + * call this API to get the control module device pointer.
>> > + */
>> > +struct device *omap_control_get(void)
>> > +{
>> > + unsigned long flags;
>> > +
>> > + if (!omap_control_module)
>> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> > +
>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&omap_control_module->reg_lock, flags);
>> > + omap_control_module->use_count++;
>> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&omap_control_module->reg_lock, flags);
>> > +
>> > + return omap_control_module->dev;
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(omap_control_get);
>> > +
>> > +/**
>> > + * omap_control_put: returns the control module device pinter
>> > + *
>> > + * The modules which has to use control module API's to read or write should
>> > + * call this API to get the control module device pointer.
>> > + */
>> > +void omap_control_put(struct device *dev)
>> > +{
>> > + struct omap_control *omap_control = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> > + unsigned long flags;
>> > +
>> > + if (!omap_control)
>> > + return;
>> > +
>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&omap_control->reg_lock, flags);
>> > + omap_control->use_count--;
>> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&omap_control_module->reg_lock, flags);
>> > +}
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(omap_control_put);
>> > +
>> > +static const struct of_device_id of_omap_control_match[] = {
>> > + { .compatible = "ti,omap3-control", },
>> > + { .compatible = "ti,omap4-control", },
>> > + { .compatible = "ti,omap5-control", },
>> > + { },
>> > +};
>> > +
>> > +static int __devinit omap_control_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> > +{
>> > + struct resource *res;
>> > + void __iomem *base;
>> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> > + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>> > + struct omap_control *omap_control;
>> > +
>> > + omap_control = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*omap_control), GFP_KERNEL);
>> > + if (!omap_control) {
>> > + dev_err(dev, "not enough memory for omap_control\n");
>> > + return -ENOMEM;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>> > + if (!res) {
>> > + dev_err(dev, "missing memory base resource\n");
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + base = devm_request_and_ioremap(dev, res);
>> > + if (!base) {
>> > + dev_err(dev, "ioremap failed\n");
>> > + return -EADDRNOTAVAIL;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + omap_control->base = base;
>> > + omap_control->dev = dev;
>> > + spin_lock_init(&omap_control->reg_lock);
>> > +
>> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, omap_control);
>> > + omap_control_module = omap_control;
>> > +
>> > + return of_platform_populate(np, of_omap_control_match, NULL, dev);
>> > +}
>> > +
>>
>> Will the probe get called on multiple devices and race ?
>
> It depends. If we decide to have an early device for scm, then the probe will
> be called more than once. If not, then only once.
>
OK. But in either case it won't race so that's fine.
>>
>> > +static int __devexit omap_control_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> > +{
>> > + struct omap_control *omap_control = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> > +
>> > + spin_lock(&omap_control->reg_lock);
>> > + if (omap_control->use_count > 0) {
>> > + spin_unlock(&omap_control->reg_lock);
>> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "device removed while still being used\n");
>> > + return -EBUSY;
>> > + }
>> > + spin_unlock(&omap_control->reg_lock);
>> > +
>> Do you really need above lock where you are just doing the
>> register read. smp_rmb(), should be enough, I guess.
>
> It is locking the use counter not a register..
>
Yes I know. But is just read and you can do away and
hence you can avoid the lock.
Regards
Santosh
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list