Re: [PATCH v10 3/5] mfd: Add support for the MediaTek MT6358 PMIC

[Hsin-hsiung Wang]

Hi,
On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 09:43 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020, Hsin-Hsiung Wang wrote:
> 
> > This adds support for the MediaTek MT6358 PMIC. This is a
> > multifunction device with the following sub modules:
> > 
> > - Regulator
> > - RTC
> > - Codec
> > - Interrupt
> > 
> > It is interfaced to the host controller using SPI interface
> > by a proprietary hardware called PMIC wrapper or pwrap.
> > MT6358 MFD is a child device of the pwrap.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hsin-Hsiung Wang <hsin-hsiung.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/Makefile                 |   2 +-
> >  drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c             | 236 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c            |  55 ++++++-
> >  include/linux/mfd/mt6358/core.h      | 158 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/mfd/mt6358/registers.h | 282 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/mfd/mt6397/core.h      |   3 +
> >  6 files changed, 731 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

[...]

> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..022e5f5
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6358-irq.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +//
> > +// Copyright (c) 2019 MediaTek Inc.
> 
> This is out of date.
> 

Thanks. I will update it in the next patch.

> > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > +#include <linux/mfd/mt6358/core.h>
> > +#include <linux/mfd/mt6358/registers.h>
> > +#include <linux/mfd/mt6397/core.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> > +
> > +static struct irq_top_t mt6358_ints[] = {
> > +	MT6358_TOP_GEN(BUCK),
> > +	MT6358_TOP_GEN(LDO),
> > +	MT6358_TOP_GEN(PSC),
> > +	MT6358_TOP_GEN(SCK),
> > +	MT6358_TOP_GEN(BM),
> > +	MT6358_TOP_GEN(HK),
> > +	MT6358_TOP_GEN(AUD),
> > +	MT6358_TOP_GEN(MISC),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void pmic_irq_enable(struct irq_data *data)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int hwirq = irqd_to_hwirq(data);
> > +	struct mt6397_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> 
> 6397?
> 
> This does make me wonder how different this file is to the existing
> support for the MT6397.  What is the justification for not extending
> that instead of creating a brand new file?
> 

MT6358 is similar to MT6397 for mfd driver except the hardware design of
interrupt which provides more interrupts than MT6397.
I think MT6358 can reuse the other parts of MT6397 mfd driver, so I only
add the interrupt part of MT6358.

> > +	struct pmic_irq_data *irqd = chip->irq_data;
> > +
> > +	irqd->enable_hwirq[hwirq] = true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void pmic_irq_disable(struct irq_data *data)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int hwirq = irqd_to_hwirq(data);
> > +	struct mt6397_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> > +	struct pmic_irq_data *irqd = chip->irq_data;
> > +
> > +	irqd->enable_hwirq[hwirq] = false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void pmic_irq_lock(struct irq_data *data)
> > +{
> > +	struct mt6397_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&chip->irqlock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void pmic_irq_sync_unlock(struct irq_data *data)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int i, top_gp, gp_offset, en_reg, int_regs, shift;
> > +	struct mt6397_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> > +	struct pmic_irq_data *irqd = chip->irq_data;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < irqd->num_pmic_irqs; i++) {
> > +		if (irqd->enable_hwirq[i] == irqd->cache_hwirq[i])
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		/* Find out the IRQ group */
> > +		top_gp = 0;
> > +		while ((top_gp + 1) < irqd->num_top &&
> > +		       i >= mt6358_ints[top_gp + 1].hwirq_base)
> > +			top_gp++;
> > +
> > +		/* Find the irq registers */
> 
> Nit: "IRQ"
> 

Thanks. I will update it in the next patch.

> > +		gp_offset = i - mt6358_ints[top_gp].hwirq_base;
> > +		int_regs = gp_offset / MT6358_REG_WIDTH;
> > +		shift = gp_offset % MT6358_REG_WIDTH;
> > +		en_reg = mt6358_ints[top_gp].en_reg +
> > +			 (mt6358_ints[top_gp].en_reg_shift * int_regs);
> > +
> > +		regmap_update_bits(chip->regmap, en_reg, BIT(shift),
> > +				   irqd->enable_hwirq[i] << shift);
> > +
> > +		irqd->cache_hwirq[i] = irqd->enable_hwirq[i];
> > +	}
> > +	mutex_unlock(&chip->irqlock);
> > +}
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +int mt6358_irq_init(struct mt6397_chip *chip)
> > +{
> > +	int i, j, ret;
> > +	struct pmic_irq_data *irqd;
> > +
> > +	irqd = devm_kzalloc(chip->dev, sizeof(struct pmic_irq_data *),
> 
> sizeof(*irqd)
> 

Thanks. I will update it in the next patch.

> [...]
> 
> >  static const struct chip_data mt6397_core = {
> >  	.cid_addr = MT6397_CID,
> >  	.cid_shift = 0,
> > @@ -154,19 +184,33 @@ static int mt6397_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	if (pmic->irq <= 0)
> >  		return pmic->irq;
> >  
> > -	ret = mt6397_irq_init(pmic);
> > -	if (ret)
> > -		return ret;
> > -
> >  	switch (pmic->chip_id) {
> >  	case MT6323_CHIP_ID:
> > +		ret = mt6397_irq_init(pmic);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> > +
> >  		ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
> >  					   mt6323_devs, ARRAY_SIZE(mt6323_devs),
> >  					   NULL, 0, pmic->irq_domain);
> >  		break;
> >  
> > +	case MT6358_CHIP_ID:
> > +		ret = mt6358_irq_init(pmic);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> > +
> > +		ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
> > +					   mt6358_devs, ARRAY_SIZE(mt6358_devs),
> > +					   NULL, 0, pmic->irq_domain);
> 
> In a subsequent patch you can choose the correct mtXXXX_devs structure
> to pass and call devm_mfd_add_devices() only once below the switch().
> 

Thanks for your comment. I will update it in the next patch.

> > +		break;
> > +
> >  	case MT6391_CHIP_ID:
> >  	case MT6397_CHIP_ID:
> > +		ret = mt6397_irq_init(pmic);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> > +
> >  		ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
> >  					   mt6397_devs, ARRAY_SIZE(mt6397_devs),
> >  					   NULL, 0, pmic->irq_domain);
> 
> [...]
>