RE: [PATCH V2 1/2] mfd: da9062: Remove IRQ requirement

[Christoph Niedermaier]

From: Lee Jones [mailto:lee@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:42 AM
> 
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2023, Christoph Niedermaier wrote:
> 
>> This patch removes the requirement for an IRQ, because for the core
>> functionality IRQ isn't needed. So this makes the DA9061/62 chip
>> useable for designs which haven't connected the IRQ pin.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Niedermaier <cniedermaier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Cc: Support Opensource <support.opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ---
>> V2: - Rebase on current next 20230209
>>     - Add Lee Jones to Cc list
>> ---
>>  drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>  1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c b/drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c
>> index 40cde51e5719..caa597400dd1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9062-core.c
>> @@ -212,6 +212,27 @@ static const struct mfd_cell da9061_devs[] = {
>>       },
>>  };
>>
>> +static const struct mfd_cell da9061_devs_without_irq[] = {
> 
> "_noirq"
> 
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9061-core",
>> +     },
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9062-regulators",
>> +     },
> 
> Place the one line entries on one line please.
> 
> Even better, use MFD_CELL_NAME()
> 
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9061-watchdog",
>> +             .of_compatible  = "dlg,da9061-watchdog",
>> +     },
> 
> MFD_CELL_OF(<name>, NULL, NULL, NULL, 0, <compatible>);
> 

I will convert all to MFD_CELL_NAME() in version 3.

>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9061-thermal",
>> +             .of_compatible  = "dlg,da9061-thermal",
>> +     },
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9061-onkey",
>> +             .of_compatible = "dlg,da9061-onkey",
>> +     },
>> +};
>> +
>>  static const struct resource da9062_core_resources[] = {
>>       DEFINE_RES_NAMED(DA9062_IRQ_VDD_WARN, 1, "VDD_WARN", IORESOURCE_IRQ),
>>  };
>> @@ -288,6 +309,35 @@ static const struct mfd_cell da9062_devs[] = {
>>       },
>>  };
>>
>> +static const struct mfd_cell da9062_devs_without_irq[] = {
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9062-core",
>> +     },
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9062-regulators",
>> +     },
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9062-watchdog",
>> +             .of_compatible  = "dlg,da9062-watchdog",
>> +     },
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9062-thermal",
>> +             .of_compatible  = "dlg,da9062-thermal",
>> +     },
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9062-rtc",
>> +             .of_compatible  = "dlg,da9062-rtc",
>> +     },
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9062-onkey",
>> +             .of_compatible  = "dlg,da9062-onkey",
>> +     },
>> +     {
>> +             .name           = "da9062-gpio",
>> +             .of_compatible  = "dlg,da9062-gpio",
>> +     },
>> +};
> 
> As above.
>

I will convert all to MFD_CELL_NAME() in version 3.

>>  static int da9062_clear_fault_log(struct da9062 *chip)
>>  {
>>       int ret;
>> @@ -625,7 +675,7 @@ static int da9062_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
>>  {
>>       const struct i2c_device_id *id = i2c_client_get_device_id(i2c);
>>       struct da9062 *chip;
>> -     unsigned int irq_base;
>> +     unsigned int irq_base = 0;
>>       const struct mfd_cell *cell;
>>       const struct regmap_irq_chip *irq_chip;
>>       const struct regmap_config *config;
>> @@ -645,21 +695,16 @@ static int da9062_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
>>       i2c_set_clientdata(i2c, chip);
>>       chip->dev = &i2c->dev;
>>
>> -     if (!i2c->irq) {
>> -             dev_err(chip->dev, "No IRQ configured\n");
>> -             return -EINVAL;
>> -     }
>> -
>>       switch (chip->chip_type) {
>>       case COMPAT_TYPE_DA9061:
>> -             cell = da9061_devs;
>> -             cell_num = ARRAY_SIZE(da9061_devs);
>> +             cell = i2c->irq ? da9061_devs : da9061_devs_without_irq;
>> +             cell_num = i2c->irq ? ARRAY_SIZE(da9061_devs) : ARRAY_SIZE(da9061_devs_without_irq);
> 
> This is hideous.
> 
> Why not just NULLify the resources below instead?
> 
>>               irq_chip = &da9061_irq_chip;
>>               config = &da9061_regmap_config;
>>               break;
>>       case COMPAT_TYPE_DA9062:
>> -             cell = da9062_devs;
>> -             cell_num = ARRAY_SIZE(da9062_devs);
>> +             cell = i2c->irq ? da9062_devs : da9062_devs_without_irq;
>> +             cell_num = i2c->irq ? ARRAY_SIZE(da9062_devs) : ARRAY_SIZE(da9062_devs_without_irq);
> >               irq_chip = &da9062_irq_chip;
> 
> Still setting this despite no IRQs?

I will take it into account in version 3.

> 
>>               config = &da9062_regmap_config;
>>               break;
>   __
>  _||_
>  \  /
>   \/
> 
> [...]
> 
> if (i2c->irq <= 0)
>   cell->resources = NULL;
>   cell->num_resources = 0;

But it is an array. I then have to go through it completely and check
if it is related to IRQ. I will try to refactor the my code to be less
hideous and send a version 3.

> 
>> @@ -695,29 +740,32 @@ static int da9062_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
>>       if (ret)
>>               return ret;
>>
>> -     ret = da9062_configure_irq_type(chip, i2c->irq, &trigger_type);
>> -     if (ret < 0) {
>> -             dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to configure IRQ type\n");
>> -             return ret;
>> -     }
>> +     if (i2c->irq) {
>> +             ret = da9062_configure_irq_type(chip, i2c->irq, &trigger_type);
>> +             if (ret < 0) {
>> +                     dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to configure IRQ type\n");
>> +                     return ret;
>> +             }
>>
>> -     ret = regmap_add_irq_chip(chip->regmap, i2c->irq,
>> -                     trigger_type | IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>> -                     -1, irq_chip, &chip->regmap_irq);
>> -     if (ret) {
>> -             dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to request IRQ %d: %d\n",
>> -                     i2c->irq, ret);
>> -             return ret;
>> -     }
>> +             ret = regmap_add_irq_chip(chip->regmap, i2c->irq,
>> +                             trigger_type | IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>> +                             -1, irq_chip, &chip->regmap_irq);
>> +             if (ret) {
>> +                     dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to request IRQ %d: %d\n",
>> +                             i2c->irq, ret);
>> +                     return ret;
>> +             }
>>
>> -     irq_base = regmap_irq_chip_get_base(chip->regmap_irq);
>> +             irq_base = regmap_irq_chip_get_base(chip->regmap_irq);
>> +     }
>>
>>       ret = mfd_add_devices(chip->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE, cell,
>>                             cell_num, NULL, irq_base,
>>                             NULL);
>>       if (ret) {
>>               dev_err(chip->dev, "Cannot register child devices\n");
>> -             regmap_del_irq_chip(i2c->irq, chip->regmap_irq);
>> +             if (i2c->irq)
>> +                     regmap_del_irq_chip(i2c->irq, chip->regmap_irq);
>>               return ret;
>>       }
>>

Regards
Christoph