Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] acpi/pmic: Add support for PMIC regs operation region

[Aaron Lu]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:06:30AM -0700, Bin Gao wrote:
> Broxton platform firmware has defined new customized operation
> regions called regs for PMIC chip which is used to handle the
> PMIC gpio mainly intended for the TYPE-C VBUS and Orientation.
> 
> The intel_pmic_regs structure is created also for this purpose
> of handling the PMIC register read and write.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chandra Sekhar Anagani <chandra.sekhar.anagani@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Bin Gao <bin.gao@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v3: none
> Changes in v2: none
>  drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.h |  5 +++
>  2 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.c b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.c
> index 410e96f..53b7052 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.c
> @@ -21,12 +21,14 @@
>  
>  #define PMIC_POWER_OPREGION_ID		0x8d
>  #define PMIC_THERMAL_OPREGION_ID	0x8c
> +#define PMIC_REGS_OPREGION_ID		0x8f
>  
>  struct intel_pmic_opregion {
>  	struct mutex lock;
>  	struct acpi_lpat_conversion_table *lpat_table;
>  	struct regmap *regmap;
>  	struct intel_pmic_opregion_data *data;
> +	struct pmic_regs_handler	ctx;

What about call it pmic_regs_ctx? pmic_regs_handler sounds like a
function to me.

>  };
>  
>  static int pmic_get_reg_bit(int address, struct pmic_table *table,
> @@ -204,6 +206,52 @@ static acpi_status intel_pmic_thermal_handler(u32 function,
>  	return AE_OK;
>  }
>  
> +static acpi_status intel_pmic_regs_handler(u32 function,

It looks like a IOCTL interface, so maybe call it
intel_pmic_ioctl_handler, but this is just bikeshedding.
If you decide to change it, then the "struct pmic_regs_handler" should
probably be renamed as "struct pmic_ioctl_ctx".

> +	acpi_physical_address address, u32 bits, u64 *value64,
> +		void *handler_context, void *region_context)
> +{
> +	struct intel_pmic_opregion *opregion = region_context;
> +	struct intel_pmic_opregion_data *d = opregion->data;
> +	int result = 0;
> +
> +	switch (address) {
> +	case 0:
> +		return AE_OK;
> +	case 1:
> +		opregion->ctx.address |= (*value64 & 0xff) << 8;
> +		return AE_OK;
> +	case 2:
> +		opregion->ctx.address |= *value64 & 0xff;
> +		return AE_OK;
> +	case 3:
> +		opregion->ctx.value = *value64 & 0xff;
> +		return AE_OK;
> +	case 4:
> +		if (*value64) {
> +			result = d->regs_write(opregion->regmap,
> +					opregion->ctx.address,
> +					opregion->ctx.value);
> +		} else {
> +			result = d->regs_read(opregion->regmap,
> +					opregion->ctx.address,
> +					&opregion->ctx.value);
> +			if (result == 0)
> +				*value64 = opregion->ctx.value;
> +		}
> +		memset(&opregion->ctx, 0x00, sizeof(opregion->ctx));

Perhaps add a default tag and print some warning in case later BIOS
updates but our driver doesn't keep up.


> +	}
> +
> +	if (result < 0) {
> +		if (result == -EINVAL)
> +			return AE_BAD_PARAMETER;
> +		else
> +			return AE_ERROR;
> +	}
> +
> +	return AE_OK;
> +}
> +
> +
>  int intel_pmic_install_opregion_handler(struct device *dev, acpi_handle handle,
>  					struct regmap *regmap,
>  					struct intel_pmic_opregion_data *d)
> @@ -227,21 +275,31 @@ int intel_pmic_install_opregion_handler(struct device *dev, acpi_handle handle,
>  	opregion->lpat_table = acpi_lpat_get_conversion_table(handle);
>  
>  	status = acpi_install_address_space_handler(handle,
> -						    PMIC_POWER_OPREGION_ID,
> -						    intel_pmic_power_handler,
> -						    NULL, opregion);
> +				PMIC_POWER_OPREGION_ID,
> +				intel_pmic_power_handler,
> +					NULL, opregion);

Better not touch these lines if there is no code change. If you want to
change the coding style, do it in another patch. But please proper align
them.

> +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> +		ret = -ENODEV;
> +		goto out_error;
> +	}
> +
> +	status = acpi_install_address_space_handler(handle,
> +				PMIC_THERMAL_OPREGION_ID,
> +				intel_pmic_thermal_handler,
> +					NULL, opregion);
>  	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> +		acpi_remove_address_space_handler(handle,
> +				PMIC_POWER_OPREGION_ID,
> +				intel_pmic_power_handler);
>  		ret = -ENODEV;
>  		goto out_error;
>  	}
>  
>  	status = acpi_install_address_space_handler(handle,
> -						    PMIC_THERMAL_OPREGION_ID,
> -						    intel_pmic_thermal_handler,
> -						    NULL, opregion);
> +					PMIC_REGS_OPREGION_ID,
> +				intel_pmic_regs_handler, NULL,
> +			opregion);
>  	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> -		acpi_remove_address_space_handler(handle, PMIC_POWER_OPREGION_ID,
> -						  intel_pmic_power_handler);

Shouldn't the power&thermal operation region handlers be removed here?

Thanks,
Aaron

>  		ret = -ENODEV;
>  		goto out_error;
>  	}
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.h b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.h
> index 2f39ee0..bdb7dcc 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.h
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic.h
> @@ -7,6 +7,11 @@ struct pmic_table {
>  	int bit;	/* control bit for power */
>  };
>  
> +struct pmic_regs_handler {
> +	u16 address;		/* pmic regs address */
> +	unsigned int value;	/* value to write @regs address */
> +};
> +
>  struct intel_pmic_opregion_data {
>  	int (*get_power)(struct regmap *r, int reg, int bit, u64 *value);
>  	int (*update_power)(struct regmap *r, int reg, int bit, bool on);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
>