This patch change all i2c access functions to SMBus access functions in order to use the ds1307 on SMBus.
I expect that using SMBus access functions is correct for all boards with i2C or SMBus adapter. Is it correct ?
I have tested it on my Geode LX board with a ds1307 device.
Please CC me your comments.
Thanks.
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c 2008-09-08 17:40:20.000000000 +0000
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c 2008-10-07 13:21:57.000000000 +0000
@@ -92,7 +92,6 @@ struct ds1307 {
bool has_nvram;
u8 regs[8];
enum ds_type type;
- struct i2c_msg msg[2];
struct i2c_client *client;
struct i2c_client dev;
struct rtc_device *rtc;
@@ -138,12 +137,10 @@ static int ds1307_get_time(struct device
int tmp;
/* read the RTC date and time registers all at once */
- ds1307->msg[1].flags = I2C_M_RD;
- ds1307->msg[1].len = 7;
-
- tmp = i2c_transfer(to_i2c_adapter(ds1307->client->dev.parent),
- ds1307->msg, 2);
- if (tmp != 2) {
+ u8 *buf = ds1307->regs;
+ tmp = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(ds1307->client,
+ DS1307_REG_SECS, 7, buf);
+ if (tmp != 7) {
dev_err(dev, "%s error %d\n", "read", tmp);
return -EIO;
}
@@ -180,7 +177,6 @@ static int ds1307_get_time(struct device
static int ds1307_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *t)
{
struct ds1307 *ds1307 = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- int result;
int tmp;
u8 *buf = ds1307->regs;
@@ -190,7 +186,6 @@ static int ds1307_set_time(struct device
t->tm_hour, t->tm_mday,
t->tm_mon, t->tm_year, t->tm_wday);
- *buf++ = 0; /* first register addr */
buf[DS1307_REG_SECS] = BIN2BCD(t->tm_sec);
buf[DS1307_REG_MIN] = BIN2BCD(t->tm_min);
buf[DS1307_REG_HOUR] = BIN2BCD(t->tm_hour);
@@ -215,16 +210,12 @@ static int ds1307_set_time(struct device
break;
}
- ds1307->msg[1].flags = 0;
- ds1307->msg[1].len = 8;
-
dev_dbg(dev, "%s: %02x %02x %02x %02x %02x %02x %02x\n",
"write", buf[0], buf[1], buf[2], buf[3],
buf[4], buf[5], buf[6]);
- result = i2c_transfer(to_i2c_adapter(ds1307->client->dev.parent),
- &ds1307->msg[1], 1);
- if (result != 1) {
+ tmp = i2c_smbus_write_i2c_block_data(ds1307->client, 0, 7, buf);
+ if (tmp < 0) {
dev_err(dev, "%s error %d\n", "write", tmp);
return -EIO;
}
@@ -246,8 +237,7 @@ ds1307_nvram_read(struct kobject *kobj,
{
struct i2c_client *client;
struct ds1307 *ds1307;
- struct i2c_msg msg[2];
- int result;
+ int tmp;
client = kobj_to_i2c_client(kobj);
ds1307 = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
@@ -259,24 +249,13 @@ ds1307_nvram_read(struct kobject *kobj,
if (unlikely(!count))
return count;
- msg[0].addr = client->addr;
- msg[0].flags = 0;
- msg[0].len = 1;
- msg[0].buf = buf;
-
- buf[0] = 8 + off;
-
- msg[1].addr = client->addr;
- msg[1].flags = I2C_M_RD;
- msg[1].len = count;
- msg[1].buf = buf;
-
- result = i2c_transfer(to_i2c_adapter(client->dev.parent), msg, 2);
- if (result != 2) {
- dev_err(&client->dev, "%s error %d\n", "nvram read", result);
+ tmp = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(client, 8 + off, count, buf);
+ if (tmp < 0) {
+ dev_err(&client->dev, "%s error %d\n", "read", tmp);
return -EIO;
}
- return count;
+
+ return tmp;
}
static ssize_t
@@ -284,8 +263,8 @@ ds1307_nvram_write(struct kobject *kobj,
char *buf, loff_t off, size_t count)
{
struct i2c_client *client;
- u8 buffer[NVRAM_SIZE + 1];
- int ret;
+ u8 buffer[NVRAM_SIZE];
+ int tmp;
client = kobj_to_i2c_client(kobj);
@@ -296,11 +275,14 @@ ds1307_nvram_write(struct kobject *kobj,
if (unlikely(!count))
return count;
- buffer[0] = 8 + off;
- memcpy(buffer + 1, buf, count);
+ memcpy(buffer, buf, count);
- ret = i2c_master_send(client, buffer, count + 1);
- return (ret < 0) ? ret : (ret - 1);
+ tmp = i2c_smbus_write_i2c_block_data(client, 8 + off, count, buffer);
+ if (tmp < 0) {
+ dev_err(&client->dev, "%s error %d\n", "write", tmp);
+ return -EIO;
+ }
+ return count;
}
static struct bin_attribute nvram = {
@@ -325,11 +307,15 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct
struct ds1307 *ds1307;
int err = -ENODEV;
int tmp;
+ u8 *buf;
+
const struct chip_desc *chip = &chips[id->driver_data];
struct i2c_adapter *adapter = to_i2c_adapter(client->dev.parent);
if (!i2c_check_functionality(adapter,
- I2C_FUNC_I2C | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WRITE_BYTE_DATA))
+ I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WRITE_BYTE_DATA
+ | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WRITE_I2C_BLOCK
+ | I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_I2C_BLOCK))
return -EIO;
if (!(ds1307 = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ds1307), GFP_KERNEL)))
@@ -338,35 +324,21 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct
ds1307->client = client;
i2c_set_clientdata(client, ds1307);
- ds1307->msg[0].addr = client->addr;
- ds1307->msg[0].flags = 0;
- ds1307->msg[0].len = 1;
- ds1307->msg[0].buf = &ds1307->reg_addr;
-
- ds1307->msg[1].addr = client->addr;
- ds1307->msg[1].flags = I2C_M_RD;
- ds1307->msg[1].len = sizeof(ds1307->regs);
- ds1307->msg[1].buf = ds1307->regs;
-
ds1307->type = id->driver_data;
switch (ds1307->type) {
case ds_1337:
case ds_1339:
- ds1307->reg_addr = DS1337_REG_CONTROL;
- ds1307->msg[1].len = 2;
-
+ buf = &ds1307->regs[DS1337_REG_CONTROL];
/* get registers that the "rtc" read below won't read... */
- tmp = i2c_transfer(adapter, ds1307->msg, 2);
+ tmp = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(ds1307->client,
+ DS1337_REG_CONTROL, 2, buf);
if (tmp != 2) {
pr_debug("read error %d\n", tmp);
err = -EIO;
goto exit_free;
}
- ds1307->reg_addr = 0;
- ds1307->msg[1].len = sizeof(ds1307->regs);
-
/* oscillator off? turn it on, so clock can tick. */
if (ds1307->regs[0] & DS1337_BIT_nEOSC)
i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, DS1337_REG_CONTROL,
@@ -385,9 +357,9 @@ static int __devinit ds1307_probe(struct
read_rtc:
/* read RTC registers */
-
- tmp = i2c_transfer(adapter, ds1307->msg, 2);
- if (tmp != 2) {
+ buf = ds1307->regs;
+ tmp = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(ds1307->client, 0, 8, buf);
+ if (tmp != 8) {
pr_debug("read error %d\n", tmp);
err = -EIO;
goto exit_free;
--
S?bastien Barr?
Bureau d'?tude - D?veloppement
SDEL Contr?le Commande
D2A - Rue Nungesser et Coli
44860 Saint Aignan de Grand Lieu
FRANCE
T?l : +33(0)2 40 84 50 88
Fax : +33(0)2 40 84 51 10
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:55:52 +0200
BARRE Sebastien <[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch change all i2c access functions to SMBus access functions in order to use the ds1307 on SMBus.
> I expect that using SMBus access functions is correct for all boards with i2C or SMBus adapter. Is it correct ?
>
> I have tested it on my Geode LX board with a ds1307 device.
>
Alas, some patches against that driver have just been sent to Linus and
this patch isn't mergeable any more. Can you please redo it against
2.6.28-rc1 (when that is released) or Linus's current git tree and
resend, copying the following:
[email protected]
David Brownell <[email protected]>
Alessandro Zummo <[email protected]>
[email protected]
Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Also, your email client replaced all the tabs with spaces. Please fix
that up beforehand.
Thanks.
This patch change i2c access functions to SMBus access functions
in order to use the ds1307 with SMBus adapter.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Barre <[email protected]>
--
The initial patch was based on 2.6.26.5, I've redone it against Linus's current git tree.
Sorry, the patch is attached because my email client replace all the tabs with spaces.
I've tested it with ds1307 chip.
Is somebody can test it on ds1337/ds1338 ?
--
Sébastien Barré
Bureau d'étude - Développement
SDEL Contrôle Commande
D2A - Rue Nungesser et Coli
44860 Saint Aignan de Grand Lieu
FRANCE
Tél : +33(0)2 40 84 50 88
Fax : +33(0)2 40 84 51 10
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:11:27 +0200
BARRE Sebastien <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've tested it with ds1307 chip.
> Is somebody can test it on ds1337/ds1338 ?
Given the amount of changes I need some Tested-bys
for the patch to go thru.
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> > I've tested it with ds1307 chip.
> > Is somebody can test it on ds1337/ds1338 ?
>
> ?Given the amount of changes I need some Tested-bys
> ?for the patch to go thru.
I tested these changes on my trusty ds1307 system using i2c-gpio
(vs a "real SMBus controller") and it works just fine.
Of the nine changed I/O calls, testing with the ds1307 covers
all but the three supporting the new alarm calls. Given that
those alarm changes are "obvious", I actually don't have any
qualms signing off on these changes ... though it would of
course be good to have Rodolfo re-test his alarm code. (It's
freshly merged in any case, so it merits testing just in case
a problem snuck in!)
- Dave