Re: [PATCH 2/4] iio: adc: Add support for the Renesas RZ/N1 ADC

[Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>]

Hi Nuno,

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 16:21:09 +0100
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:

...
> 
> > +static int rzn1_adc_enable(struct rzn1_adc *rzn1_adc)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = rzn1_adc_core_power_on(&rzn1_adc->adc_core[0]);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = rzn1_adc_core_power_on(&rzn1_adc->adc_core[1]);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto poweroff_adc_core0;
> > +
> > +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(rzn1_adc->pclk);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto poweroff_adc_core1;
> > +
> > +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(rzn1_adc->adc_clk);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto disable_pclk;
> > +
> > +	ret = rzn1_adc_power(rzn1_adc, true);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto disable_adc_clk;  
> 
> Can we use devm_actions() on the above to avoid the complex error path plus the
> .remove() callback?

rzn1_adc_enable() is used by the driver pm_runtime_resume() function.

I don't think that devm_add_actions_or_reset() will help here.

In my understanding, devm_* functions are use to perform some operations
automatically on device removal.

The purpose of the error path here is to restore a correct state if
rzn1_adc_enable() failed when it is called from pm_runtime_resume().

In that case no device removal is involved to trig any action set by
devm_add_actions_or_reset().

Maybe I am wrong. Did I miss something?

> 
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +
> > +disable_adc_clk:
> > +	clk_disable_unprepare(rzn1_adc->adc_clk);
> > +disable_pclk:
> > +	clk_disable_unprepare(rzn1_adc->pclk);
> > +poweroff_adc_core1:
> > +	rzn1_adc_core_power_off(&rzn1_adc->adc_core[1]);
> > +poweroff_adc_core0:
> > +	rzn1_adc_core_power_off(&rzn1_adc->adc_core[0]);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +

...

> > +static int rzn1_adc_set_iio_dev_channels(struct rzn1_adc *rzn1_adc,
> > +					 struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > +{
> > +	int adc_used;
> > +
> > +	adc_used = rzn1_adc->adc_core[0].is_used ? 0x01 : 0x00;
> > +	adc_used |= rzn1_adc->adc_core[1].is_used ? 0x02 : 0x00;
> > +
> > +	switch (adc_used) {
> > +	case 0x01:
> > +		indio_dev->channels = rzn1_adc1_channels;
> > +		indio_dev->num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(rzn1_adc1_channels);
> > +		return 0;
> > +	case 0x02:
> > +		indio_dev->channels = rzn1_adc2_channels;
> > +		indio_dev->num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(rzn1_adc2_channels);
> > +		return 0;
> > +	case 0x03:
> > +		indio_dev->channels = rzn1_adc1_adc2_channels;
> > +		indio_dev->num_channels =
> > ARRAY_SIZE(rzn1_adc1_adc2_channels);
> > +		return 0;
> > +	default:
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	dev_err(rzn1_adc->dev, "Failed to set IIO channels, no ADC core
> > used\n");
> > +	return -ENODEV;  
> 
> dev_err_probe()?

Why? the error returned is a well known value: -ENODEV.

dev_err_probe() should be involved when -EPROBE_DEFER is a potential error
code.

IMHO, dev_err() here is correct.

> 
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rzn1_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +	struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> > +	struct rzn1_adc *rzn1_adc;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*rzn1_adc));
> > +	if (!indio_dev)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	rzn1_adc = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > +	rzn1_adc->dev = dev;
> > +	mutex_init(&rzn1_adc->lock);  
> 
> devm_mutex_init()

Yes, I will update in the next iteration.

> 
> > +
> > +	rzn1_adc->regs = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(rzn1_adc->regs))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(rzn1_adc->regs);
> > +
> > +	rzn1_adc->pclk = devm_clk_get(dev, "pclk");
> > +	if (IS_ERR(rzn1_adc->pclk))
> > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(rzn1_adc->pclk), "Failed to
> > get pclk\n");
> > +
> > +	rzn1_adc->adc_clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "adc-clk");
> > +	if (IS_ERR(rzn1_adc->pclk))
> > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(rzn1_adc->pclk), "Failed to
> > get adc-clk\n");
> > +
> > +	ret = rzn1_adc_core_get_regulators(rzn1_adc, &rzn1_adc->adc_core[0],
> > +					   "adc1-avdd", "adc1-vref");
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = rzn1_adc_core_get_regulators(rzn1_adc, &rzn1_adc->adc_core[1],
> > +					   "adc2-avdd", "adc2-vref");
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;  
> 
> Hmm, is avdd really an optional regulator? I mean can the ADC power up at all
> without a supply in AVDD? Even vref seems to be mandatory as we can't properly
> scale the sample without it.

Where do you see that avdd is an optional regulator?

> 
> Also, can't we have getting and enabling the regulator together? Then, we could
> use some of the modern helpers to simplify the code (ok I see you use them in
> the PM callbacks).

Yes, I rely on PM callbacks to handle those regulators.

> 
> > +
> > +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, indio_dev);
> > +
> > +	indio_dev->name = dev_name(dev);  
> 
> dev_name() should not be used for the above. It's typically the part name so I
> guess in here "rzn1-adc" would be the appropriate one.

I thought it was more related to the instance and so having a different name
for each instance was better.

Some other IIO drivers use dev_name() here.

But well, if you confirm that a fixed string should be used and so all
instances have the same string, no problem, I will update my indio_dev->name.

> 
> > +	indio_dev->info = &rzn1_adc_info;
> > +	indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE;
> > +	ret = rzn1_adc_set_iio_dev_channels(rzn1_adc, indio_dev);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = rzn1_adc_enable(rzn1_adc);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(dev, 500);
> > +	pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_enable(dev);  
> 
> There's a devm_pm_runtime_enable() API now.

Will look to use it in the next iteration.

> 
> > +
> > +	ret = devm_iio_device_register(dev, indio_dev);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto disable;
> > +
> > +	pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(dev);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +
> > +disable:
> > +	pm_runtime_disable(dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(dev);
> > +
> > +	rzn1_adc_disable(rzn1_adc);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void rzn1_adc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct iio_dev *indio_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +	struct rzn1_adc *rzn1_adc = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > +
> > +	pm_runtime_disable(rzn1_adc->dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_set_suspended(rzn1_adc->dev);
> > +	pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(rzn1_adc->dev);
> > +
> > +	rzn1_adc_disable(rzn1_adc);
> > +}  
> 
> I'm fairly confident we can sanely go without .remove().

Will see what I can be do for the next iteration.

Maybe I will ask some questions if I need some clarification around
pm_runtime but let me first try to go further in that direction.

>  
> > +
> > +static int rzn1_adc_pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct iio_dev *indio_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +	struct rzn1_adc *rzn1_adc = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > +
> > +	rzn1_adc_disable(rzn1_adc);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rzn1_adc_pm_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct iio_dev *indio_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +	struct rzn1_adc *rzn1_adc = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > +
> > +	return rzn1_adc_enable(rzn1_adc);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct dev_pm_ops rzn1_adc_pm_ops = {
> > +	SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
> > pm_runtime_force_resume)
> > +	SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(rzn1_adc_pm_runtime_suspend,
> > rzn1_adc_pm_runtime_resume, NULL)
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id rzn1_adc_of_match[] = {
> > +	{ .compatible = "renesas,rzn1-adc" },
> > +	{ /* sentinel */ },
> > +};  
> 
> We typically don't add the sentinel comment in IIO.

Ok, will be removed.

> 
> > +
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rzn1_adc_of_match);
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver rzn1_adc_driver = {
> > +	.probe = rzn1_adc_probe,
> > +	.remove = rzn1_adc_remove,
> > +	.driver = {
> > +		.name = "rzn1-adc",
> > +		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(rzn1_adc_of_match),  
> 
> Drop of_match_ptr().

Ok, will be removed.


Thanks for your review.

Best regards,
Hervé