On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> Add Maxim 77836 support to max14577 driver. The chipsets have same MUIC
> component so the extcon, charger and regulators are almost the same. The
> max77836 however has also PMIC and Fuel Gauge.
> 
> The MAX77836 uses three I2C slave addresses and has additional interrupts
> (related to PMIC and Fuel Gauge). It has also Interrupt Source register,
> just like MAX77686 and MAX77693.
> 
> The MAX77836 PMIC's TOPSYS and INTSRC interrupts are reported in the
> PMIC block. The PMIC block has different I2C slave address and uses own
> regmap so another regmap_irq_chip is needed.
> 
> Since we have two regmap_irq_chip, use shared interrupts on MAX77836.
> 
> This patch adds additional defines and functions to the max14577 MFD core
> driver so the driver will handle both chipsets.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlow...@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.c...@samsung.com>
> Cc: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
> Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprow...@samsung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/max14577.c               |  215 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  include/linux/mfd/max14577-private.h |   85 +++++++++++++-
>  include/linux/mfd/max14577.h         |    7 +-
>  3 files changed, 296 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/max14577.c b/drivers/mfd/max14577.c
> index 224aba8c5b3f..5b10f6f89834 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/max14577.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/max14577.c
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  /*
> - * max14577.c - mfd core driver for the Maxim 14577
> + * max14577.c - mfd core driver for the Maxim 14577/77836

We may wish to consider changing the name of this file at a later
date.

> - * Copyright (C) 2013 Samsung Electrnoics
> + * Copyright (C) 2013,2014 Samsung Electrnoics

You can remove the the '2013' completely now.

>   * Chanwoo Choi <cw00.c...@samsung.com>
>   * Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlow...@samsung.com>
>   *
> @@ -37,11 +37,31 @@ static struct mfd_cell max14577_devs[] = {
>       { .name = "max14577-charger", },
>  };
>  
> +static struct mfd_cell max77836_devs[] = {
> +     {
> +             .name = "max77836-muic",
> +             .of_compatible = "maxim,max77836-muic",
> +     },
> +     {
> +             .name = "max77836-regulator",
> +             .of_compatible = "maxim,max77836-regulator",
> +     },
> +     { .name = "max77836-charger", },

Why doesn't the charger require a compatible string?

> +     {
> +             .name = "max77836-battery",
> +             .of_compatible = "maxim,max77836-battery",
> +     },
> +};
> +
> @@ -56,6 +76,29 @@ static bool max14577_muic_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, 
> unsigned int reg)
>       return false;
>  }
>  
> +static bool max77836_muic_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> +{
> +     /* Any max14577 volatile registers are also max77836 volatile. */
> +     if (max14577_muic_volatile_reg(dev, reg))
> +             return true;

New line here please.

> +     switch (reg) {
> +     case MAX77836_FG_REG_VCELL_MSB ... MAX77836_FG_REG_SOC_LSB:
> +     case MAX77836_FG_REG_CRATE_MSB ... MAX77836_FG_REG_CRATE_LSB:
> +     case MAX77836_FG_REG_STATUS_H ... MAX77836_FG_REG_STATUS_L:
> +             /* fall through */

It's okay not to have these here. We know how switch statements
work. ;)

> +     case MAX77836_PMIC_REG_INTSRC:
> +             /* fall through */
> +     case MAX77836_PMIC_REG_TOPSYS_INT:
> +             /* fall through */
> +     case MAX77836_PMIC_REG_TOPSYS_STAT:
> +             return true;
> +     default:
> +             break;
> +     }
> +     return false;
> +}
> +
> +

Superfluous new line here.

> +static const struct regmap_irq_chip max77836_muic_irq_chip = {
> +     .name                   = "max77836-muic",
> +     .status_base            = MAXIM_MUIC_REG_INT1,
> +     .mask_base              = MAXIM_MUIC_REG_INTMASK1,
> +     .mask_invert            = 1,

I'd prefer the use of 'true' or 'false' for bools.

> +     .num_regs               = 3,
> +     .irqs                   = max77836_muic_irqs,
> +     .num_irqs               = ARRAY_SIZE(max77836_muic_irqs),
> +};
> +

<snip>

> +static const struct regmap_irq_chip max77836_pmic_irq_chip = {
> +     .name                   = "max77836-pmic",
> +     .status_base            = MAX77836_PMIC_REG_TOPSYS_INT,
> +     .mask_base              = MAX77836_PMIC_REG_TOPSYS_INT_MASK,
> +     .mask_invert            = 0,

'false' please.

> +     .num_regs               = 1,
> +     .irqs                   = max77836_pmic_irqs,
> +     .num_irqs               = ARRAY_SIZE(max77836_pmic_irqs),
> +};
> +

<snip>

> +static int max77836_init(struct maxim_core *maxim_core)
> +{
> +     int ret;
> +     u8 intsrc_mask;
> +
> +     maxim_core->i2c_pmic = i2c_new_dummy(maxim_core->i2c->adapter,
> +                     I2C_ADDR_PMIC);
> +     if (!maxim_core->i2c_pmic) {
> +             dev_err(maxim_core->dev, "Failed to register PMIC I2C 
> device\n");
> +             return -EPERM;

Not sure this is the best errno to return.

Perhaps -ENODEV would be more suitable?

<snip>

>  #define MAXIM_STATUS2_CHGTYP_MASK    (0x7 << MAXIM_STATUS2_CHGTYP_SHIFT)
>  #define MAXIM_STATUS2_CHGDETRUN_MASK (0x1 << MAXIM_STATUS2_CHGDETRUN_SHIFT)
>  #define MAXIM_STATUS2_DCDTMR_MASK    (0x1 << MAXIM_STATUS2_DCDTMR_SHIFT)
>  #define MAXIM_STATUS2_DBCHG_MASK     (0x1 << MAXIM_STATUS2_DBCHG_SHIFT)
>  #define MAXIM_STATUS2_VBVOLT_MASK    (0x1 << MAXIM_STATUS2_VBVOLT_SHIFT)
> +#define MAX77836_STATUS2_VIDRM_MASK  (0x1 << MAX77836_STATUS2_VIDRM_SHIFT)

It's up to you, but all of these "0x1 <<"s can be replaced with the
BIT() macro if you so wished.

>  /* MAX14577 STATUS3 register */
>  #define MAXIM_STATUS3_EOC_SHIFT              0
> @@ -232,6 +242,70 @@ enum maxim_muic_charger_type {
>  
>  
>  

Do all of these extra new lines really exist, or is it just a patch
thing? If they do, can you get rid of them please?

> +/* Slave addr = 0x46: PMIC */
> +enum max77836_pmic_reg {
> +     MAX77836_COMP_REG_COMP1                 = 0x60,
> +
> +     MAX77836_LDO_REG_CNFG1_LDO1             = 0x51,
> +     MAX77836_LDO_REG_CNFG2_LDO1             = 0x52,
> +     MAX77836_LDO_REG_CNFG1_LDO2             = 0x53,
> +     MAX77836_LDO_REG_CNFG2_LDO2             = 0x54,
> +     MAX77836_LDO_REG_CNFG_LDO_BIAS          = 0x55,
> +
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_PMIC_ID               = 0x20,
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_PMIC_REV              = 0x21,
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_INTSRC                = 0x22,
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_INTSRC_MASK           = 0x23,
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_TOPSYS_INT            = 0x24,
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_TOPSYS_INT_MASK       = 0x26,
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_TOPSYS_STAT           = 0x28,
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_MRSTB_CNTL            = 0x2A,
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_LSCNFG                = 0x2B,
> +
> +     MAX77836_PMIC_REG_END,
> +};

Any reason why these aren't in numerical order?

<snip>

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to