2020-07-07 10:33:24

by Gene Chen

Subject: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: mt6360: Fix flow which is used to check ic exist

From: Gene Chen <[email protected]>

Fix flow which is used to check ic exist

Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h | 8 ++++----
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
index 2dd5918..4bb2949 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
@@ -293,6 +293,23 @@ static const struct mfd_cell mt6360_devs[] = {
NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-tcpc"),
};

+static int mt6360_check_vendor_info(struct mt6360_data *data)
+{
+ u32 info;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MT6360_REG_PMU_DEVINFO, &info);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ if ((info & MT6360_CHIPVEN_MASK) != MT6360_CHIPVEN_VAL)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ data->chip_rev = info & MT6360_CHIPREV_MASK;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = {
MT6360_PMU_SLAVEID,
MT6360_PMIC_SLAVEID,
@@ -303,7 +320,6 @@ static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = {
static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
{
struct mt6360_data *data;
- unsigned int reg_data;
int i, ret;

data = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -319,16 +335,10 @@ static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
return PTR_ERR(data->regmap);
}

- ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MT6360_PMU_DEV_INFO, &reg_data);
+ ret = mt6360_check_vendor_info(data);
if (ret) {
- dev_err(&client->dev, "Device not found\n");
- return ret;
- }
-
- data->chip_rev = reg_data & CHIP_REV_MASK;
- if (data->chip_rev != CHIP_VEN_MT6360) {
dev_err(&client->dev, "Device not supported\n");
- return -ENODEV;
+ return ret;
}

ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&client->dev, data->regmap, client->irq,
diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
index 9fc6718..5ec0f5d 100644
--- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
+++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct mt6360_data {
};

/* PMU register defininition */
-#define MT6360_PMU_DEV_INFO (0x00)
+#define MT6360_REG_PMU_DEVINFO (0x00)
#define MT6360_PMU_CORE_CTRL1 (0x01)
#define MT6360_PMU_RST1 (0x02)
#define MT6360_PMU_CRCEN (0x03)
@@ -233,8 +233,8 @@ struct mt6360_data {
#define MT6360_IRQ_REGNUM 16
#define MT6360_IRQ_RETRIG BIT(2)

-#define CHIP_VEN_MASK (0xF0)
-#define CHIP_VEN_MT6360 (0x50)
-#define CHIP_REV_MASK (0x0F)
+#define MT6360_CHIPVEN_MASK (0xF0)
+#define MT6360_CHIPVEN_VAL (0x50)
+#define MT6360_CHIPREV_MASK (0x0F)

#endif /* __MT6360_H__ */
--
2.7.4

2020-07-10 14:26:34

by Matthias Brugger

Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: mt6360: Fix flow which is used to check ic exist

On 07/07/2020 12:30, Gene Chen wrote:
> From: Gene Chen <[email protected]>
>
> Fix flow which is used to check ic exist
>
> Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
> include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h | 8 ++++----
> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> index 2dd5918..4bb2949 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> @@ -293,6 +293,23 @@ static const struct mfd_cell mt6360_devs[] = {
> NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-tcpc"),
> };
>
> +static int mt6360_check_vendor_info(struct mt6360_data *data)
> +{
> + u32 info;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MT6360_REG_PMU_DEVINFO, &info);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if ((info & MT6360_CHIPVEN_MASK) != MT6360_CHIPVEN_VAL)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + data->chip_rev = info & MT6360_CHIPREV_MASK;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = {
> MT6360_PMU_SLAVEID,
> MT6360_PMIC_SLAVEID,
> @@ -303,7 +320,6 @@ static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = {
> static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> {
> struct mt6360_data *data;
> - unsigned int reg_data;
> int i, ret;
>
> data = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -319,16 +335,10 @@ static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> return PTR_ERR(data->regmap);
> }
>
> - ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MT6360_PMU_DEV_INFO, &reg_data);
> + ret = mt6360_check_vendor_info(data);
> if (ret) {
> - dev_err(&client->dev, "Device not found\n");
> - return ret;
> - }
> -
> - data->chip_rev = reg_data & CHIP_REV_MASK;
> - if (data->chip_rev != CHIP_VEN_MT6360) {

Why not only applying the MASK here instead of put this all in a new function?

> dev_err(&client->dev, "Device not supported\n");
> - return -ENODEV;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&client->dev, data->regmap, client->irq,
> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> index 9fc6718..5ec0f5d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct mt6360_data {
> };
>
> /* PMU register defininition */
> -#define MT6360_PMU_DEV_INFO (0x00)
> +#define MT6360_REG_PMU_DEVINFO (0x00)
> #define MT6360_PMU_CORE_CTRL1 (0x01)
> #define MT6360_PMU_RST1 (0x02)
> #define MT6360_PMU_CRCEN (0x03)
> @@ -233,8 +233,8 @@ struct mt6360_data {
> #define MT6360_IRQ_REGNUM 16
> #define MT6360_IRQ_RETRIG BIT(2)
>
> -#define CHIP_VEN_MASK (0xF0)
> -#define CHIP_VEN_MT6360 (0x50)
> -#define CHIP_REV_MASK (0x0F)
> +#define MT6360_CHIPVEN_MASK (0xF0)
> +#define MT6360_CHIPVEN_VAL (0x50)
> +#define MT6360_CHIPREV_MASK (0x0F)

Same here as in the other patches. Don't just rename defines if there is no good
reason.

Regards,
Matthias

>
> #endif /* __MT6360_H__ */
>

2020-07-16 09:54:38

by Gene Chen

Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: mt6360: Fix flow which is used to check ic exist

Matthias Brugger <[email protected]> 於 2020年7月10日 週五 下午10:25寫道：
>
>
>
> On 07/07/2020 12:30, Gene Chen wrote:
> > From: Gene Chen <[email protected]>
> >
> > Fix flow which is used to check ic exist
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
> > include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h | 8 ++++----
> > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > index 2dd5918..4bb2949 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6360-core.c
> > @@ -293,6 +293,23 @@ static const struct mfd_cell mt6360_devs[] = {
> > NULL, 0, 0, "mediatek,mt6360-tcpc"),
> > };
> >
> > +static int mt6360_check_vendor_info(struct mt6360_data *data)
> > +{
> > + u32 info;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MT6360_REG_PMU_DEVINFO, &info);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if ((info & MT6360_CHIPVEN_MASK) != MT6360_CHIPVEN_VAL)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + data->chip_rev = info & MT6360_CHIPREV_MASK;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = {
> > MT6360_PMU_SLAVEID,
> > MT6360_PMIC_SLAVEID,
> > @@ -303,7 +320,6 @@ static const unsigned short mt6360_slave_addr[MT6360_SLAVE_MAX] = {
> > static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > {
> > struct mt6360_data *data;
> > - unsigned int reg_data;
> > int i, ret;
> >
> > data = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > @@ -319,16 +335,10 @@ static int mt6360_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > return PTR_ERR(data->regmap);
> > }
> >
> > - ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, MT6360_PMU_DEV_INFO, &reg_data);
> > + ret = mt6360_check_vendor_info(data);
> > if (ret) {
> > - dev_err(&client->dev, "Device not found\n");
> > - return ret;
> > - }
> > -
> > - data->chip_rev = reg_data & CHIP_REV_MASK;
> > - if (data->chip_rev != CHIP_VEN_MT6360) {
>
> Why not only applying the MASK here instead of put this all in a new function?
>

I think merge the ic check flow into function is well-organized.
if not, i can restore the same as before.

> > dev_err(&client->dev, "Device not supported\n");
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&client->dev, data->regmap, client->irq,
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> > index 9fc6718..5ec0f5d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/mt6360.h
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct mt6360_data {
> > };
> >
> > /* PMU register defininition */
> > -#define MT6360_PMU_DEV_INFO (0x00)
> > +#define MT6360_REG_PMU_DEVINFO (0x00)
> > #define MT6360_PMU_CORE_CTRL1 (0x01)
> > #define MT6360_PMU_RST1 (0x02)
> > #define MT6360_PMU_CRCEN (0x03)
> > @@ -233,8 +233,8 @@ struct mt6360_data {
> > #define MT6360_IRQ_REGNUM 16
> > #define MT6360_IRQ_RETRIG BIT(2)
> >
> > -#define CHIP_VEN_MASK (0xF0)
> > -#define CHIP_VEN_MT6360 (0x50)
> > -#define CHIP_REV_MASK (0x0F)
> > +#define MT6360_CHIPVEN_MASK (0xF0)
> > +#define MT6360_CHIPVEN_VAL (0x50)
> > +#define MT6360_CHIPREV_MASK (0x0F)
>
> Same here as in the other patches. Don't just rename defines if there is no good
> reason.
>

Is easy to read a good reason to rename it?
if not, i can restore the same as before.

> Regards,
> Matthias
>
> >
> > #endif /* __MT6360_H__ */
> >