Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] power: supply: max17040: Config alert SOC low level threshold from FDT
From: Matheus Castello
Date: Fri Nov 01 2019 - 12:52:25 EST
Em 11/1/19 12:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski escreveu:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:41:33PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote:
For configuration of fuel gauge alert for a low level state of charge
interrupt we add a function to config level threshold and a device tree
binding property to set it in flatned device tree node.
Now we can use "maxim,alert-low-soc-level" property with the values from
1% up to 32% to configure alert interrupt threshold.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
index 75459f76d02c..802575342c72 100644
--- a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
+++ b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@
#define MAX17040_DELAY 1000
#define MAX17040_BATTERY_FULL 95
+#define MAX17040_ATHD_MASK 0xFFC0
+#define MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP 4
+
struct max17040_chip {
struct i2c_client *client;
struct delayed_work work;
@@ -43,6 +46,8 @@ struct max17040_chip {
int soc;
/* State Of Charge */
int status;
+ /* Low alert threshold from 32% to 1% of the State of Charge */
+ u32 low_soc_alert_threshold;
};
static int max17040_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
@@ -99,6 +104,22 @@ static void max17040_reset(struct i2c_client *client)
max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_CMD, 0x0054);
}
+static int max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(struct i2c_client *client,
+ u32 level)
+{
+ int ret;
+ u16 data;
+
+ level = 32 - level;
+ data = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP);
+ /* clear the alrt bit and set LSb 5 bits */
+ data &= MAX17040_ATHD_MASK;
+ data |= level;
+ ret = max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP, data);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
static void max17040_get_vcell(struct i2c_client *client)
{
struct max17040_chip *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
@@ -115,7 +136,6 @@ static void max17040_get_soc(struct i2c_client *client)
u16 soc;
soc = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_SOC);
-
chip->soc = (soc >> 8);
}
@@ -161,6 +181,24 @@ static void max17040_get_status(struct i2c_client *client)
chip->status = POWER_SUPPLY_STATUS_FULL;
}
+static int max17040_get_of_data(struct max17040_chip *chip)
+{
+ struct device *dev = &chip->client->dev;
+ struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ if (of_property_read_u32(np, "maxim,alert-low-soc-level",
+ &chip->low_soc_alert_threshold)) {
Please align the line break with line above. checkpatch --strict might
give you hints about this.
>> + chip->low_soc_alert_threshold = MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP;
+ /* check if low_soc_alert_threshold is between 1% and 32% */
The comment looks misleading here, like it belongs to previous block.
Maybe put it inside else if {} block?
+ } else if (chip->low_soc_alert_threshold <= 0 ||
+ chip->low_soc_alert_threshold >= 33){
Missing space before {.
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
static void max17040_check_changes(struct i2c_client *client)
{
max17040_get_vcell(client);
@@ -192,6 +230,10 @@ static irqreturn_t max17040_thread_handler(int id, void *dev)
/* send uevent */
power_supply_changed(chip->battery);
+ /* reset alert bit */
+ max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
+ chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);
Unless the continuation exceeds 80 character limit, please align it with
previous line.
+
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
@@ -216,6 +258,7 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
struct i2c_adapter *adapter = client->adapter;
struct power_supply_config psy_cfg = {};
struct max17040_chip *chip;
+ int ret;
if (!i2c_check_functionality(adapter, I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE))
return -EIO;
@@ -226,6 +269,12 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
chip->client = client;
chip->pdata = client->dev.platform_data;
+ ret = max17040_get_of_data(chip);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(&client->dev,
+ "failed: low SOC alert OF data out of bounds\n");
+ return ret;
+ }
i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
psy_cfg.drv_data = chip;
@@ -242,20 +291,31 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
/* check interrupt */
if (client->irq) {
- int ret;
- unsigned int flags;
-
- dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
- flags = IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_ONESHOT;
- ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq, NULL,
- max17040_thread_handler, flags,
- chip->battery->desc->name,
- chip);
-
- if (ret) {
- client->irq = 0;
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(client->dev.of_node,
+ "maxim,max77836-battery")) {
Alignment.
+ ret = max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
+ chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);
Ditto.
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(&client->dev,
+ "Failed to set low SOC alert: err %d\n",
+ ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
+ ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev,
+ client->irq, NULL, max17040_thread_handler,
+ (client->flags | IRQF_ONESHOT),
This looks unrelated. Befor ethis were IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING |
IRQF_ONESHOT, now you use client->flags. There is no reason why this
commit should change >
I am using client->flags here to not overwrite the flag passed in device
tree. Let me know what you think about it: if I should leave it as in
the previous commit, or should I modify the previous commit too.
+ chip->battery->desc->name, chip);
This breaks alignment which was here before.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Thanks for the review i will work on it.
+
+ if (ret) {
+ client->irq = 0;
+ dev_warn(&client->dev,
+ "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
+ }
+ } else {
dev_warn(&client->dev,
- "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
+ "Device not compatible for IRQ");
}
}
--
2.24.0.rc2