Re: [PATCH 5/5] rtc: rtc-rc5t583: add ricoh rc5t619 RTC driver

From: Alexandre Belloni
Date: Mon Oct 21 2019 - 06:15:34 EST

Next message: Radhey Shyam Pandey: "[PATCH v2 net-next] net: axienet: In kconfig add ARM64 as supported platform"
Previous message: Jason Wang: "Re: [PATCH V4 5/6] virtio: introduce a mdev based transport"
In reply to: Andreas Kemnade: "[PATCH 5/5] rtc: rtc-rc5t583: add ricoh rc5t619 RTC driver"
Next in thread: H. Nikolaus Schaller: "Re: [Letux-kernel] [PATCH 5/5] rtc: rtc-rc5t583: add ricoh rc5t619 RTC driver"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,

The subject line is weird, how is it related to rc5t583?

On 21/10/2019 07:41:04+0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> config RTC_DRV_S35390A
> tristate "Seiko Instruments S-35390A"
> select BITREVERSE
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Makefile b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
> index 6b09c21dc1b6..1d0673fd0954 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PXA) += rtc-pxa.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_R7301) += rtc-r7301.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_R9701) += rtc-r9701.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RC5T583) += rtc-rc5t583.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RC5T619) += rtc-rc5t619.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808) += rtc-rk808.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RP5C01) += rtc-rp5c01.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RS5C313) += rtc-rs5c313.o
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-rc5t619.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-rc5t619.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..311788ff0723
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-rc5t619.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,476 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> +/*
> + * drivers/rtc/rtc-ricoh619.c
> + *
> + * Real time clock driver for RICOH R5T619 power management chip.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2019 Andreas Kemnade
> + *
> + * Based on code
> + * Copyright (C) 2012-2014 RICOH COMPANY,LTD
> + *
> + * Based on code
> + * Copyright (C) 2011 NVIDIA Corporation

Based on is not useful.

> + */
> +
> +/* #define debug 1 */
> +/* #define verbose_debug 1 */
> +

No dead code please.

> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/rn5t618.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> +#include <linux/bcd.h>
> +#include <linux/rtc.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> +
> +struct rc5t619_rtc {
> + int irq;
> + struct rtc_device *rtc;
> + struct rn5t618 *rn5t618;
> +};
> +
> +#define CTRL1_ALARM_ENABLED 0x40
> +#define CTRL1_24HR 0x20
> +#define CTRL1_PERIODIC_MASK 0xf
> +
> +#define CTRL2_PON 0x10
> +#define CTRL2_ALARM_STATUS 0x80
> +#define CTRL2_CTFG 0x4
> +#define CTRL2_CTC 0x1
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_periodic_disable(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int err;
> +
> + /* disable function */
> + err = regmap_update_bits(rtc->rn5t618->regmap,
> + RN5T618_RTC_CTRL1, CTRL1_PERIODIC_MASK, 0);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> +
> + /* clear alarm flag and CTFG */
> + err = regmap_update_bits(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_CTRL2,
> + CTRL2_ALARM_STATUS | CTRL2_CTFG | CTRL2_CTC, 0);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_clk_adjust(struct device *dev, uint8_t clk)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + return regmap_write(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_ADJUST, clk);

Is it useful to have a function for a single regmap_write?

Also what is that adjusting? If this is adding/removing clock cycles,
you need to use .set_offset and .read_offset.

> +}
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_pon_get_clr(struct device *dev, uint8_t *pon_f)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int err;
> + unsigned int reg_data;
> +
> + err = regmap_read(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_CTRL2, &reg_data);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> +
> + if (reg_data & CTRL2_PON) {
> + *pon_f = 1;
> + /* clear VDET PON */
> + reg_data &= ~(CTRL2_PON | CTRL2_CTC | 0x4a); /* 0101-1011 */
> + reg_data |= 0x20; /* 0010-0000 */

Is it possible to have more defines for those magic values?

> + err = regmap_write(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_CTRL2,
> + reg_data);
> + } else {
> + *pon_f = 0;
> + }
> +
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +/* 0-12hour, 1-24hour */
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_24hour_mode_set(struct device *dev, int mode)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + return regmap_update_bits(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_CTRL1,
> + CTRL1_24HR, mode ? CTRL1_24HR : 0);

Is it useful to have a function for a single regmap_update_bits?

> +}
> +
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + u8 buff[7];
> + int err;
> + int cent_flag;
> +
> + err = regmap_bulk_read(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_SECONDS,
> + buff, sizeof(buff));
> + if (err < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to read time: %d\n", err);

Please reconsider adding so many strings in the driver, they add almost
no value but will increase the kernel memory footprint.

> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + if (buff[5] & 0x80)
A define for the century bit would be good.

> + cent_flag = 1;
> + else
> + cent_flag = 0;
> +
> + buff[5] = buff[5] & 0x1f; /* bit5 19_20 */

This assignment is unnecessary, you can mask the value when using it.

Is the RTC 1900-2099 or 2000-2199? Please include the ouput of rtc-range
in the commit log:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/rtc-tools.git/tree/rtc-range.c

> +
> + tm->tm_sec = bcd2bin(buff[0]);
> + tm->tm_min = bcd2bin(buff[1]);
> + tm->tm_hour = bcd2bin(buff[2]); /* bit5 PA_H20 */
> + tm->tm_wday = bcd2bin(buff[3]);
> + tm->tm_mday = bcd2bin(buff[4]);
> + tm->tm_mon = bcd2bin(buff[5]) - 1; /* back to system 0-11 */
> + tm->tm_year = bcd2bin(buff[6]) + 100 * cent_flag;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + u8 buff[7];
> + int err;
> + int cent_flag;
> +
> + if (tm->tm_year >= 100)
> + cent_flag = 1;
> + else
> + cent_flag = 0;
> +
> + tm->tm_mon = tm->tm_mon + 1;

This assignment is not necessary.

> + buff[0] = bin2bcd(tm->tm_sec);
> + buff[1] = bin2bcd(tm->tm_min);
> + buff[2] = bin2bcd(tm->tm_hour);
> + buff[3] = bin2bcd(tm->tm_wday);
> + buff[4] = bin2bcd(tm->tm_mday);
> + buff[5] = bin2bcd(tm->tm_mon); /* system set 0-11 */
> + buff[6] = bin2bcd(tm->tm_year - cent_flag * 100);
> +
> + if (cent_flag)
> + buff[5] |= 0x80;
> +
> + err = regmap_bulk_write(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_SECONDS,
> + buff, sizeof(buff));
> + if (err < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to program new time: %d\n", err);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_alarm_is_enabled(struct device *dev, uint8_t *enabled)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int err;
> + unsigned int reg_data;
> +
> + err = regmap_read(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_CTRL1, &reg_data);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(dev, "read RTC_CTRL1 error %d\n", err);
> + *enabled = 0;

Is it necessary to set enabled here?

> + } else {
> + if (reg_data & CTRL1_ALARM_ENABLED)
> + *enabled = 1;
> + else
> + *enabled = 0;
> + }
> +
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +/* 0-disable, 1-enable */
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(struct device *dev, unsigned int enabled)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + int err;

err is not necessary.

> +
> + err = regmap_update_bits(rtc->rn5t618->regmap,
> + RN5T618_RTC_CTRL1,
> + CTRL1_ALARM_ENABLED,
> + enabled ? CTRL1_ALARM_ENABLED : 0);
> + if (err < 0)
> + return err;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + u8 buff[6];
> + unsigned int buff_cent;
> + int err;
> + int cent_flag;
> + unsigned int enabled_flag;
> +
> + err = regmap_read(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_MONTH, &buff_cent);
> + if (err < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to read time: %d\n", err);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + if (buff_cent & 0x80)
> + cent_flag = 1;
> + else
> + cent_flag = 0;
> +
> + err = regmap_bulk_read(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_ALARM_Y_SEC,
> + buff, sizeof(buff));
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + err = regmap_read(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_CTRL1,
> + &enabled_flag);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + if (enabled_flag & CTRL1_ALARM_ENABLED)
> + enabled_flag = 1;

Why don't you set alrm->enabled directly here?

alrm->enabled = !!(enabled_flag & CTRL1_ALARM_ENABLED);

> + else
> + enabled_flag = 0;
> +
> +
> + buff[3] = buff[3] & 0x3f;
> +
> + alrm->time.tm_sec = bcd2bin(buff[0]);
> + alrm->time.tm_min = bcd2bin(buff[1]);
> + alrm->time.tm_hour = bcd2bin(buff[2]);
> + alrm->time.tm_mday = bcd2bin(buff[3]);
> + alrm->time.tm_mon = bcd2bin(buff[4]) - 1;
> + alrm->time.tm_year = bcd2bin(buff[5]) + 100 * cent_flag;
> + alrm->enabled = enabled_flag;
> + dev_dbg(dev, "read alarm: %d/%d/%d %d:%d:%d\n",

Use %ptR

> + (alrm->time.tm_mon), alrm->time.tm_mday, alrm->time.tm_year,
> + alrm->time.tm_hour, alrm->time.tm_min, alrm->time.tm_sec);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + u8 buff[6];
> + int err;
> + int cent_flag;
> +
> + err = 0;
> + rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(dev, 0);

This may fail

> + if (rtc->irq == -1)
> + return -EIO;

This has to be -EINVAL to get UIE emulation working.

> +
> + if (alrm->enabled == 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (alrm->time.tm_year >= 100)
> + cent_flag = 1;
> + else
> + cent_flag = 0;
> +
> + alrm->time.tm_mon += 1;
> + buff[0] = bin2bcd(alrm->time.tm_sec);
> + buff[1] = bin2bcd(alrm->time.tm_min);
> + buff[2] = bin2bcd(alrm->time.tm_hour);
> + buff[3] = bin2bcd(alrm->time.tm_mday);
> + buff[4] = bin2bcd(alrm->time.tm_mon);
> + buff[5] = bin2bcd(alrm->time.tm_year - 100 * cent_flag);
> + buff[3] |= 0x80; /* set DAL_EXT */

This bit needs a define.

> +
> + err = regmap_bulk_write(rtc->rn5t618->regmap, RN5T618_RTC_ALARM_Y_SEC,
> + buff, sizeof(buff));
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(dev, "unable to set alarm: %d\n", err);
> + return -EBUSY;

Why EBUSY?

> + }
> +
> + rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(dev, alrm->enabled);

This may fail.

> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct rtc_class_ops rc5t619_rtc_ops = {
> + .read_time = rc5t619_rtc_read_time,
> + .set_time = rc5t619_rtc_set_time,
> + .set_alarm = rc5t619_rtc_set_alarm,
> + .read_alarm = rc5t619_rtc_read_alarm,
> + .alarm_irq_enable = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable,
> +};
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_alarm_flag_clr(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + /* clear alarm-D status bits.*/
> + return regmap_update_bits(rtc->rn5t618->regmap,
> + RN5T618_RTC_CTRL2,
> + CTRL2_ALARM_STATUS | CTRL2_CTC, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t rc5t619_rtc_irq(int irq, void *data)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = data;
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + rc5t619_rtc_alarm_flag_clr(dev);
> +
> + rtc_update_irq(rtc->rtc, 1, RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF);
> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct rn5t618 *rn5t618 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + struct rc5t619_rtc *rtc;
> + uint8_t pon_flag, alarm_flag;
> + int err;
> +
> + rtc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*rtc), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (IS_ERR(rtc)) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(rtc);
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no enough memory for rc5t619_rtc using\n");
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + rtc->rn5t618 = rn5t618;
> +
> + dev_set_drvdata(dev, rtc);
> + rtc->irq = -1;
> +
> + if (rn5t618->irq_data)
> + rtc->irq = regmap_irq_get_virq(rn5t618->irq_data,
> + RN5T618_IRQ_RTC);
> +
> + if (rtc->irq < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "no irq specified, wakeup is disabled\n");
> + rtc->irq = -1;
> + }
> +
> + /* get interrupt flag */
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_is_enabled(dev, &alarm_flag);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + /* get PON flag */
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_pon_get_clr(&pdev->dev, &pon_flag);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "get PON flag error: %d\n", err);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + /* using 24h-mode */
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_24hour_mode_set(&pdev->dev, 1);
> +

Doesn't that corrupt the time if the RTC was previously set in 12h-mode?

> + /* disable rtc periodic function */
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_periodic_disable(&pdev->dev);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "disable rtc periodic int: %d\n", err);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + /* clearing RTC Adjust register */
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_clk_adjust(&pdev->dev, 0);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to program RTC_ADJUST: %d\n", err);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + /* disable interrupt */
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev, 0);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "disable alarm interrupt: %d\n", err);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + if (pon_flag) {
> + alarm_flag = 0;
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_flag_clr(&pdev->dev);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> + "pon=1 clear alarm flag error: %d\n", err);
> + return err;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);

Do you want to do that even without an irq?

> +
> + rtc->rtc = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, pdev->name,
> + &rc5t619_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
> +

Please use devm_rtc_allocate_device and rtc_register_device

> + if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc)) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc);
> + dev_err(dev, "RTC device register: err %d\n", err);
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + /* set interrupt and enable it */
> + if (rtc->irq != -1) {
> + err = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc->irq, NULL,
> + rc5t619_rtc_irq,
> + IRQF_ONESHOT,
> + "rtc-rc5t619",
> + &pdev->dev);
> + if (err < 0) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "request IRQ:%d fail\n", rtc->irq);
> + rtc->irq = -1;
> +
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev, 0);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + } else {
> + /* enable wake */
> + enable_irq_wake(rtc->irq);
> + /* enable alarm_d */
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev, alarm_flag);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed rtc setup\n");
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + /* system don't want to using alarm interrupt, so close it */
> + err = rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev, 0);
> + if (err) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "disable rtc alarm error\n");
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "ricoh61x interrupt is disabled\n");
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rc5t619_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + rc5t619_rtc_alarm_enable(&pdev->dev, 0);

If the PMIC can be used to start the platform, you probably don't want
to disable the alarm here. Even if it doesn't, is it actually useful to
disable the alarm?

> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct platform_driver rc5t619_rtc_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "rc5t619-rtc",
> + },
> + .probe = rc5t619_rtc_probe,
> + .remove = rc5t619_rtc_remove,
> +};
> +
> +module_platform_driver(rc5t619_rtc_driver);
> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:rc5t619-rtc");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RICOH RC5T619 RTC driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> --
> 2.11.0
>

--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Next message: Radhey Shyam Pandey: "[PATCH v2 net-next] net: axienet: In kconfig add ARM64 as supported platform"
Previous message: Jason Wang: "Re: [PATCH V4 5/6] virtio: introduce a mdev based transport"
In reply to: Andreas Kemnade: "[PATCH 5/5] rtc: rtc-rc5t583: add ricoh rc5t619 RTC driver"
Next in thread: H. Nikolaus Schaller: "Re: [Letux-kernel] [PATCH 5/5] rtc: rtc-rc5t583: add ricoh rc5t619 RTC driver"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]