From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org (Vaibhav Hiremath)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 22:10:19 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 05/12] i2c: pxa: Add bus reset functionality
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdaxWsi8t6aUFJK-KCmQF1gEOLiOE8=fgDRxQDSi4G6FgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1432818224-17070-1-git-send-email-vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>	<1432818224-17070-6-git-send-email-vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>
 <CACRpkdaxWsi8t6aUFJK-KCmQF1gEOLiOE8=fgDRxQDSi4G6FgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <556DDC73.9010702@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On Tuesday 02 June 2015 06:42 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Vaibhav Hiremath
> <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>>
>> Since there is some problematic i2c slave devices on some
>> platforms such as dkb (sometimes), it will drop down sda
>> and make i2c bus hang, at that time, it need to config
>> scl/sda into gpio to simulate "stop" sequence to recover
>> i2c bus, so add this interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leilei Shang <shangll@marvell.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
>> [vaibhav.hiremath at linaro.org: Updated Changelog]
>> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>
>
> Double signed-off?
>
> (...)
> +#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
>
> You should use <linux/gpio/consumer.h> and then use
> GPIO descriptors instead.
>
>> @@ -177,6 +179,9 @@ struct pxa_i2c {
>>          bool                    highmode_enter;
>>          unsigned int            ilcr;
>>          unsigned int            iwcr;
>> +       struct pinctrl          *pinctrl;
>> +       struct pinctrl_state    *pin_i2c;
>> +       struct pinctrl_state    *pin_gpio;
>
> Yup that's the right way. I see this is the "default"
> state for pin_i2c.
>
>> +static void i2c_bus_reset(struct pxa_i2c *i2c)
>> +{
>> +       int ret, ccnt, pins_scl, pins_sda;
>
> Use GPIO descriptors.
>
> struct gpio_desc *scl, *sda;
>
>> +       struct device *dev = i2c->adap.dev.parent;
>> +       struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>> +
>> +       if (!i2c->pinctrl) {
>> +               dev_warn(dev, "could not do i2c bus reset\n");
>> +               return;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       ret = pinctrl_select_state(i2c->pinctrl, i2c->pin_gpio);
>> +       if (ret) {
>> +               dev_err(dev, "could not set gpio pins\n");
>> +               return;
>> +       }
>
> Exactly like that yes.
>
>> +       pins_scl = of_get_named_gpio(np, "i2c-gpio", 0);
>> +       if (!gpio_is_valid(pins_scl)) {
>> +               dev_err(dev, "i2c scl gpio not set\n");
>> +               goto err_out;
>> +       }
>> +       pins_sda = of_get_named_gpio(np, "i2c-gpio", 1);
>> +       if (!gpio_is_valid(pins_sda)) {
>> +               dev_err(dev, "i2c sda gpio not set\n");
>> +               goto err_out;
>> +       }
>
> I would suggest just using two GPIOs in the node relying
> on index order. With GPIO descriptors:
>
> scl = gpiod_get_index(dev, "i2c-gpio", 0, GPIOD_ASIS);
> sda = gpiod_get_index(dev, "i2c-gpio", 1, GPIOD_ASIS);
>
> Then use gpiod* accessors below and...
>
>> +
>> +       gpio_request(pins_scl, NULL);
>> +       gpio_request(pins_sda, NULL);
>> +
>> +       gpio_direction_input(pins_sda);
>> +       for (ccnt = 20; ccnt; ccnt--) {
>> +               gpio_direction_output(pins_scl, ccnt & 0x01);
>> +               udelay(5);
>> +       }
>> +       gpio_direction_output(pins_scl, 0);
>> +       udelay(5);
>> +       gpio_direction_output(pins_sda, 0);
>> +       udelay(5);
>> +       /* stop signal */
>> +       gpio_direction_output(pins_scl, 1);
>> +       udelay(5);
>> +       gpio_direction_output(pins_sda, 1);
>> +       udelay(5);
>> +
>> +       gpio_free(pins_scl);
>> +       gpio_free(pins_sda);
>
> gpiod_put(scl);
> gpiod_put(sda);
>
>> +err_out:
>> +       ret = pinctrl_select_state(i2c->pinctrl, i2c->pin_i2c);
>> +       if (ret)
>> +               dev_err(dev, "could not set default(i2c) pins\n");
>> +       return;
>
> Nice.
>
> Overall it looks like a real nice structured workaround using
> the API exactly as intended, just need to catch up with
> using GPIO descriptors.
>


Thanks Linus,

I will work on this and submit V2 shortly.

Thanks,
Vaibhav