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

[Vaibhav Hiremath]

On Tuesday 07 July 2015 04:48 PM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

Note that this is init function, called from probe.

So both approach looks ok to me.

Thanks,
Vaibhav