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

[Vaibhav Hiremath]

On Tuesday 07 July 2015 04:42 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Ideally not.  Don't you save the 'struct device' into *chip?  You
> should use that to fetch the pdata, like:
>
> pdata = dev_get_platdata(chip->dev);
>

Yes certainly, this is another option (rather preferred one).

But to be consistent with other's I proposed this, please refer to the
fn device_800_init(), where all xxx_init() are taking 2 arguments, and
second argument is pdata.


There is room for cleanup, I agree.
I can put this too in the next cleanup series.

Thanks,
Vaibhav