[PATCH v2] i2c: axxia: Add I2C driver for AXM55xx

Varka Bhadram
2014-09-29T11:14:52Z

On 09/29/2014 04:43 PM, Anders Berg wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Varka Bhadram <varkabhadram@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/29/2014 03:02 PM, Anders Berg wrote:
>>> Add I2C bus driver for the controller found in the LSI Axxia family SoCs.
>>> The
>>> driver implements 10-bit addressing and SMBus transfer modes via emulation
>>> (including SMBus block data read).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anders Berg <anders.berg@avagotech.com>
>>> ---
>>>
> (...)
>>> +
>>> + if (!idev->msg) {
>>> + dev_warn(idev->dev, "unexpected interrupt");
>>
>> Missed terminating new line '\n'
>>
> Right, I'll fix that (all occurrences)
>
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* RX FIFO needs service? */
>>> + if (i2c_m_rd(idev->msg) && (status & MST_STATUS_RFL))
>>> + axxia_i2c_empty_rx_fifo(idev);
>>> +
>>> + /* TX FIFO needs service? */
>>> + if (!i2c_m_rd(idev->msg) && (status & MST_STATUS_TFL)) {
>>> + if (axxia_i2c_fill_tx_fifo(idev) == 0)
>>> + i2c_int_disable(idev, MST_STATUS_TFL);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (status & MST_STATUS_SCC) {
>>> + /* Stop completed */
>>> + i2c_int_disable(idev, ~0);
>>> + complete(&idev->msg_complete);
>>> + } else if (status & MST_STATUS_SNS) {
>>> + /* Transfer done */
>>> + i2c_int_disable(idev, ~0);
>>> + if (i2c_m_rd(idev->msg) && idev->msg_xfrd <
>>> idev->msg->len)
>>> + axxia_i2c_empty_rx_fifo(idev);
>>> + complete(&idev->msg_complete);
>>> + } else if (unlikely(status & MST_STATUS_ERR)) {
>>> + /* Transfer error */
>>> + i2c_int_disable(idev, ~0);
>>> + if (status & MST_STATUS_AL)
>>> + idev->msg_err = -EAGAIN;
>>> + else if (status & MST_STATUS_NAK)
>>> + idev->msg_err = -ENXIO;
>>> + else
>>> + idev->msg_err = -EIO;
>>> + dev_dbg(idev->dev, "error %#x, addr=%#x rx=%u/%u
>>> tx=%u/%u\n",
>>> + status,
>>> + idev->msg->addr,
>>> + readl(idev->base + MST_RX_BYTES_XFRD),
>>> + readl(idev->base + MST_RX_XFER),
>>> + readl(idev->base + MST_TX_BYTES_XFRD),
>>> + readl(idev->base + MST_TX_XFER));
>>> + complete(&idev->msg_complete);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> +out:
>>> + /* Clear interrupt */
>>> + writel(INT_MST, idev->base + INTERRUPT_STATUS);
>>> +
>>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Its looks good if we move the entire ISR above probe/remove
>> functionalities...
>>
> Not sure what you mean here... The ISR _is_ above probe/remove.

I mean ISR should immediately above probe functionality. So that we can see
devm_request_irq(..,isr_name,..) ISR directly with isr name..

--
Regards,
Varka Bhadram.