Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] i2c: mpc: Interrupt driven transfer

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:10 AM Chris Packham
<chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The fsl-i2c controller will generate an interrupt after every byte
> transferred. Make use of this interrupt to drive a state machine which
> allows the next part of a transfer to happen as soon as the interrupt is
> received. This is particularly helpful with SMBUS devices like the LM81
> which will timeout if we take too long between bytes in a transfer.

Also see my other comments below.

...

> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0

I think it is better to split this with a removal of old stuff and
updating a copyright notice and go as a last one in the series.

...

> +static char *action_str[] = {

static const char * const action_str[]

> +       "invalid",
> +       "start",
> +       "restart",
> +       "read begin",
> +       "read",
> +       "write",
> +       "stop",
> +};

...

> +       dev_dbg(i2c->dev, "%s: action = %s\n", __func__,
> +               action_str[i2c->action]);

Drop useless __func__. With Dynamic Debug enabled it can be turned on
and off at run time.

...

> +                       /* Generate txack on next to last byte */

Tx ACK ? Ditto for other comments.

...

> +               dev_dbg(i2c->dev, "%s: %s %02x\n", __func__,
> +                       action_str[i2c->action], byte);

You already printed action. Anything changed?

> +               dev_dbg(i2c->dev, "%s: %s %02x\n", __func__,
> +                       action_str[i2c->action], msg->buf[i2c->byte_posn]);

Deduplicate this. Perhaps at the end of switch-case print once with
whatever temporary variable value you want to.

...

> +       case MPC_I2C_ACTION_INVALID:
> +       default:

Does the first one deserve loud WARN?
Otherwise, why is it defined at all?

> +               WARN(1, "Unexpected action %d\n", i2c->action);
> +               break;

...

> +static void mpc_i2c_do_intr(struct mpc_i2c *i2c, u8 status)
>  {

> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&i2c->lock, flags);

Why _irqsave?

...

> +               dev_dbg(i2c->dev, "arbiritration lost\n");

arbitration

...

> +       if (i2c->expect_rxack && (status & CSR_RXAK)) {
> +               dev_dbg(i2c->dev, "no RXAK\n");

You see, you have to be consistent in comments and messages.
Either use TXAK/RXAK, or more verbose 'Tx ACK/Rx ACK' everywhere.

...

> +out:

out_unlock:

> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i2c->lock, flags);

...

> +static irqreturn_t mpc_i2c_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> +{
> +       struct mpc_i2c *i2c = dev_id;

> +       u8 status = readb(i2c->base + MPC_I2C_SR);

I would split this assignment, so it will be closer to its user.

> +       if (status & CSR_MIF) {
> +               writeb(0, i2c->base + MPC_I2C_SR);
> +               mpc_i2c_do_intr(i2c, status);
> +               return IRQ_HANDLED;
>         }
> +       return IRQ_NONE;
> +}

...

> +       time_left = wait_event_timeout(i2c->waitq, !i2c->block, i2c->adap.timeout);

> +

No need for a blank line here.

> +       if (!time_left)
> +               i2c->rc = -ETIMEDOUT;

> +       else if (time_left < 0)

Redundant 'else'

> +               i2c->rc = time_left;

Can't you return an error code from here, rather than injecting it
somewhere where it doesn't belong to?

>  }

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko