[PATCH-V5 3/4] mfd: 88pm800: Set default interrupt clear method

[Vaibhav Hiremath]

On Tuesday 07 July 2015 04:10 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>> On Tuesday 07 July 2015 12:59 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>
>>>> As per the spec, bit 1 (INT_CLEAR_MODE) of reg addr 0xe
>>>> (page 0) controls the method of clearing interrupt
>>>> status of 88pm800 family of devices;
>>>>
>>>>    0: clear on read
>>>>    1: clear on write
>>>>
>>>> If pdata is not coming from board file, then set the
>>>> default irq clear method to "irq clear on write"
>>>>
>>>> Also, as suggested by "Lee Jones" renaming variable field
>>>> to appropriate name.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhao Ye <zhaoy at marvell.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath at linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/mfd/88pm800.c       | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>>>   include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h | 10 ++++++++--
>>>>   2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/88pm800.c b/drivers/mfd/88pm800.c
>>>> index d495737..66347be 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/88pm800.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/88pm800.c
>>>> @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ static int device_irq_init_800(struct pm80x_chip *chip)
>>>>   {
>>>>   	struct regmap *map = chip->regmap;
>>>>   	unsigned long flags = IRQF_ONESHOT;
>>>> -	int data, mask, ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> +	int irq_clr_mode, mask, ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>>   	if (!map || !chip->irq) {
>>>>   		dev_err(chip->dev, "incorrect parameters\n");
>>>> @@ -382,15 +382,16 @@ static int device_irq_init_800(struct pm80x_chip *chip)
>>>>   	}
>>>>
>>>>   	/*
>>>> -	 * irq_mode defines the way of clearing interrupt. it's read-clear by
>>>> -	 * default.
>>>> +	 * irq_clr_on_wr defines the way of clearing interrupt by
>>>> +	 * read/write(0/1).  It's read-clear by default.
>>>>   	 */
>>>>   	mask =
>>>>   	    PM800_WAKEUP2_INV_INT | PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_CLEAR |
>>>>   	    PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_MASK;
>>>>
>>>> -	data = PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_CLEAR;
>>>> -	ret = regmap_update_bits(map, PM800_WAKEUP2, mask, data);
>>>> +	irq_clr_mode = chip->irq_clr_method == PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_WRITE ?
>>>> +		PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR : PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR;
>>>> +	ret = regmap_update_bits(map, PM800_WAKEUP2, mask, irq_clr_mode);
>>>
>>> What's stopping you just passing PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR or
>>> PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR from pdata?  Then you can use the value
>>> directly without all of this faffing about.
>>>
>>>    regmap_update_bits(map, PM800_WAKEUP2, mask, pdata->irq_clr_mode);
>>>
>>
>> Because "irq_clr_method" is of boolean type.
>> And macros which you are referring to is,
>>
>> #define PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR            (0 << 1)
>> #define PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR           (1 << 1)
>>
>>
>> And also, I feel it is more cleaner approach with the current code as
>> register definition and userflag are maintained separately.
>
> I see your point, although it's a shame we have to have this code in
> its place.
>
> One thing I think you can do though is rid chip->irq_clr_method, just
> use the one you already have in pdata.
>

Looking at the current code,
Yes, this can be done, but I have to do some more changes around it,
to make code cleaner,

change the signature of

static int device_irq_init_800(struct pm80x_chip *chip)

TO

static int device_irq_init_800(struct pm80x_chip *chip, struct 
pm80x_platform_data *pdata)


and then only use pdata->irq_clr_method.


How do you want to get this inside? V6 version? or separate patch?

I have one more cleanup patch in the queue, which I am planning to
submit today, if you are ok then I can submit along with that.


Thanks,
Vaibhav