Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Feb 2023 19:40:19 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] hwmon: (pmbus/core): Add interrupt support | From | Naresh Solanki <> |
| |
Hi
On 11-02-2023 09:07 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:02:40PM +0100, Naresh Solanki wrote: >> From: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@9elements.com> >> >> Implement PMBUS irq handler. >> >> Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@9elements.com> >> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@9elements.com> >> --- >> drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h | 2 +- >> drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h >> index 713ea7915425..11e84e141126 100644 >> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h >> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h >> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ enum pmbus_regs { >> >> PMBUS_CAPABILITY = 0x19, >> PMBUS_QUERY = 0x1A, >> - >> + PMBUS_SMBALERT_MASK = 0x1B, >> PMBUS_VOUT_MODE = 0x20, >> PMBUS_VOUT_COMMAND = 0x21, >> PMBUS_VOUT_TRIM = 0x22, >> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c >> index 5ccae8126a56..d5403baad60a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c >> @@ -3093,6 +3093,85 @@ static int pmbus_regulator_register(struct pmbus_data *data) >> } >> #endif >> >> +static int pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(struct i2c_client *client, u8 page, u8 reg, u8 val) >> +{ >> + int err; >> + >> + err = pmbus_check_word_register(client, page, reg | (val << 8)); >> + if (err) >> + return err; > > I am not convinced that this is necessary. The next command will return an > error anyway if the register or the specific mask is not supported, so what > is the point ? > Sure. will remove. >> + >> + return pmbus_write_word_data(client, page, PMBUS_SMBALERT_MASK, reg | (val << 8)); >> +} >> + >> +static irqreturn_t pmbus_fault_handler(int irq, void *pdata) >> +{ >> + struct pmbus_data *data = pdata; >> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(data->dev); >> + int i, status; >> + >> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock); >> + for (i = 0; i < data->info->pages; i++) { >> + status = pmbus_read_status_word(client, i); >> + if (status < 0) { >> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock); >> + return status; >> + } >> + >> + if (status & ~(PB_STATUS_OFF | PB_STATUS_BUSY | PB_STATUS_POWER_GOOD_N)) >> + pmbus_clear_fault_page(client, i); >> + } >> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock); >> + >> + return IRQ_HANDLED; >> +} >> + >> +static int pmbus_irq_setup(struct i2c_client *client, struct pmbus_data *data) >> +{ >> + struct device *dev = &client->dev; >> + const struct pmbus_status_category *cat; >> + const struct pmbus_status_assoc *bit; >> + int i, j, err, ret, func; >> + u8 mask; >> + u8 misc_status[] = {PMBUS_STATUS_CML, PMBUS_STATUS_OTHER, PMBUS_STATUS_MFR_SPECIFIC, >> + PMBUS_STATUS_FAN_12, PMBUS_STATUS_FAN_34}; > > static const u8 ... > Done >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < data->info->pages; i++) { >> + func = data->info->func[i]; >> + >> + for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(pmbus_status_flag_map); j++) { >> + cat = &pmbus_status_flag_map[j]; >> + if (!(func & cat->func)) >> + continue; >> + mask = 0; >> + for (bit = cat->bits; bit->pflag; bit++) >> + mask |= bit->pflag; >> + >> + err = pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(client, i, cat->reg, ~mask); >> + if (err) >> + dev_err_once(dev, "Failed to set smbalert for reg 0x%02x\n", >> + cat->reg); > > dev_err implies an error. This is ignored and thus not an error. On top of that, > not all chips support PMBUS_SMBALERT_MASK. All of those would see this message. > We can't have that. At best make it a dev_dbg. > Sure. Will make it dev_dbg_once. >> + } >> + >> + for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(misc_status); j++) { >> + err = pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(client, i, misc_status[j], 0xff); >> + if (err) >> + dev_err_once(dev, "Failed to set smbalert for reg 0x%02x\n", >> + misc_status[j]); > > We definitely can't have a message here; that would fire for almost > every chip. > Sure. Will remove printing of error here. >> + } >> + } >> + >> + /* Register notifiers - can fail if IRQ is not given */ > > If there is no irq, what is the point of executing this code in the first > place ? No, wait, in that case the function isn't called in the first place. > I think the comment doesn't add any value and is just confusing. > Will clean this comment. >> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL, pmbus_fault_handler, 0, >> + "pmbus-irq", data); >> + if (ret) { > > Why both "err" and "ret" ? > Will replace ret with err. >> + dev_warn(dev, "IRQ disabled %d\n", ret); > > The calling code aborts, so this should be dev_err() and say something > better than "IRQ disabled"; It should be something like "failed to > request irq". > Sure. Will update to "failed to request an irq" >> + return ret; >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> static struct dentry *pmbus_debugfs_dir; /* pmbus debugfs directory */ >> >> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS) >> @@ -3455,6 +3534,12 @@ int pmbus_do_probe(struct i2c_client *client, struct pmbus_driver_info *info) >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> + if (client->irq > 0) { >> + ret = pmbus_irq_setup(client, data); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; >> + } >> + > > I think it would be better to have the check in pmbus_irq_setup(): > > pmbus_irq_setup() > { > if (!client->irq) > return 0; > > ... > } > > and here > ret = pmbus_irq_setup(client, data); > if (ret) > return ret; > > Sure >> ret = pmbus_init_debugfs(client, data); >> if (ret) >> dev_warn(dev, "Failed to register debugfs\n");
| |