Couple of things on top of Guenter's comments. > +config MFD_IMANAGER2 > + tristate "Support for Advantech iManager2 EC ICs" > + select MFD_CORE
So you're not using any other frameworks? I see quite a lot of Mailbox stuff. Why aren't you using the Mailbox API, drivers/mailbox? I'm gussing you'll need I2C somewhere down the line too. And Regmap? > +/* imanager2_core.c - MFD core driver of Advantech EC IT8516/18/28 I can't find any documentation on this device. Is there a datasheet or similar? > + * Copyright (C) 2014 Richard Vidal-Dorsch <[email protected]> > + * > + * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > + * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or > + * (at your option) any later version. > + * > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > + * GNU General Public License for more details. > + * > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > + * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > + */ Documentation/CodingStyle - Comments. Run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your patches _before_ resending. > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt Don't like this. > +#include <linux/module.h> > +#include <linux/mfd/core.h> > +#include <linux/mfd/advantech/imanager2.h> > + > +#define DRV_NAME CHIP_NAME Or this. > +#define DRV_VERSION "0.2.2" > + > +static struct platform_device *pdev; Why don't you register from Device Tree or platform data? I.e. from arch/<arch>/. While we're on the subject, which architecture(s) is this likely to run on, or is this device completely agnostic? > +static struct mfd_cell it85xx_devs[] = { > + { .name = DRV_NAME "_hwm", }, > + { .name = DRV_NAME "_i2c", }, > +}; Don't like this, just use "it85xx" instead of DRV_NAME. > +static int ec_authentication(struct it85xx *ec) > +{ > + u8 tmp; > + int ret = 0; > + > + spin_lock(&ec->lock); > + > + if (inb(EC_IO_PORT_CMD) == 0xFF && inb(EC_IO_PORT_DATA) == 0xFF) { One would guess that the Mailbox driver should be taking care of all these. [...] > +static int ec_get_chip_type(struct it85xx *ec) > +{ > + spin_lock(&ec->lock); Can you explain to me why you've chosen spin_lock over, say a mutex? > + outb(0x20, EC_SIO_CMD); Don't use magic numbers - all addresses/masks should be #defined [...] > +static int ec_get_info(struct it85xx *ec) > +{ > + int ret; > + /* first kernel version that supports ITE mailbox */ What? > + const u16 supmbox_1st_kver = 0x1105; No way, please remove. > + u8 *tmp = (u8 *)&ec->info.version.kernel_ver; > + > + spin_lock(&ec->lock); > + > + ret = ec_io_read(EC_CMD_ACPIRAM_READ, > + EC_ACPIRAM_ADDR_KERNEL_MAJOR_VERSION, &tmp[0], 2); > + > + if (ec->info.version.kernel_ver >= supmbox_1st_kver) { Yuk! If you explain why you're doing this, maybe we can suggest another way of achieving the same aim. > +static int __init it85xx_probe(struct it85xx *ec) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + ret = ec_authentication(ec); > + if (ret != 0) > + return ret; > + > + ret = ec_get_chip_type(ec); > + if (ret != 0) > + return ret; > + > + ret = ec_get_info(ec); > + if (ret != 0) > + return ret; > + > + ret = ec_build_device_table(ec); > + if (ret != 0) > + return ret; > + > + if (request_region(EC_IO_PORT_DATA, 2, DRV_NAME) == NULL) { devm_* > + release_region(EC_IO_PORT_DATA, 2); Delete > + return -EIO; > + } > + > + if (request_region(EC_ITE_PORT_OFS, 2, DRV_NAME) == NULL) { Etc ... > + release_region(EC_ITE_PORT_OFS, 2); > + return -EIO; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int __init it85xx_device_add(const struct it85xx *ec) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + pdev = platform_device_alloc(DRV_NAME, 0); > + if (pdev == NULL) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + pr_err("Device allocation failed\n"); > + goto exit; Remove the 'exit' lable and just 'return ret' here. > + } > + > + ret = platform_device_add_data(pdev, ec, > + sizeof(struct it85xx)); ec is not platform data, it's device data. Platform data should be passed in via the platform_data structure or Device Tree. > + if (ret != 0) { > + pr_err("Platform data allocation failed\n"); > + goto exit_device_put; > + } > + > + ret = platform_device_add(pdev); > + if (ret != 0) { > + pr_err("Device addition failed (%d)\n", ret); > + goto exit_device_put; > + } > + > + ret = mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, pdev->id, it85xx_devs, > + ARRAY_SIZE(it85xx_devs), NULL, -1, NULL); Second argument here should probably be -1 for 'auto'. > + if (ret != 0) { > + pr_err("Cannot add sub device (error=%d)\n", ret); Once you've converted this whole driver to a platform device, all the pr_*'s need moving over to dev_*'s. > + goto exit_device_unregister; > + } else { No need for the else. > + pr_info("MFD core driver v%s loaded\n", DRV_VERSION); Remove this. > + } > + > + return 0; > + > +exit_device_unregister: > + platform_device_unregister(pdev); > +exit_device_put: > + platform_device_put(pdev); > +exit: > + return ret; > +} > + > + Too many '\n'. > +static int __init it85xx_init(void) > +{ > + struct it85xx ec; > + > + memset(&ec, 0, sizeof(struct it85xx)); > + spin_lock_init(&ec.lock); > + if (it85xx_probe(&ec) != 0) Don't role your own Device Driver framework, instead [un]register with platform_driver_[un]register(). > + return -ENODEV; > + > + return it85xx_device_add(&ec); > +} > + > +static void __exit it85xx_exit(void) > +{ > + release_region(EC_ITE_PORT_OFS, 2); > + release_region(EC_IO_PORT_DATA, 2); > + mfd_remove_devices(&pdev->dev); This should all be done in .remove, not exit. > + platform_device_unregister(pdev); > + pr_info("MFD core driver removed\n"); Useless print, please remove. > +++ b/drivers/mfd/imanager2_ec.c > @@ -0,0 +1,1093 @@ [...] > +#include <linux/io.h> > +#include <linux/delay.h> > +#include <linux/mfd/advantech/imanager2.h> > + > +#define EC_UDELAY_TIME 100 > +#define EC_MAX_TIMEOUT_COUNT 10000 Are these arbitrary? > +/*=========================================================== > + * Name : wait_obf > + * Purpose: wait output buffer full flag set > + * Input : none > + * Output : 0: success; else: fail > + *===========================================================*/ These headers are ugly, please use kerneldoc format. > +static int wait_obf(void) > +{ > + int i; > + for (i = 0; i < EC_MAX_TIMEOUT_COUNT; i++) { > + if ((inb(EC_IO_PORT_CMD) & OBF_MASK) != 0) > + return 0; > + > + udelay(EC_UDELAY_TIME); > + } > + > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > +} [...] > +int ec_mailbox_read_buffer(struct it85xx *ec, u8 cmd, u8 para, > + u8 *data, int len) > +{ > + int ret, i; > + u8 status; > + > + ret = ec_wait_cmd_clear(ec); > + if (ret != 0) > + return ret; > + > + ec_write_mailbox(ec, EC_MAILBOX_OFFSET_PARA, para); > + ec_write_mailbox(ec, EC_MAILBOX_OFFSET_CMD, cmd); > + > + ret = ec_wait_cmd_clear(ec); > + if (ret != 0) > + return ret; > + > + ret = ec_read_mailbox(ec, EC_MAILBOX_OFFSET_STATUS, &status); > + if (ret != 0) > + return ret; > + if (status != EC_MAILBOX_STATUS_SUCCESS) > + return -EFAULT; > + > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) > + ec_read_mailbox(ec, EC_MAILBOX_OFFSET_DAT(i), &data[i]); > + > + return 0; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ec_mailbox_read_buffer); I suggest that you'll need to move a lot of this code to drivers/mailbox. [...] I need to stop here - this patch is massive. Please break it up into more manageable chunks for your next submission. A 1500 line patch, is pretty unacceptable. -- 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
