Re:linux-next: build failure after merge of the battery tree

Re:linux-next: build failure after merge of the battery tree

[Ashish Jangam]

> Hi Anton,
> 
> After merging the battery tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
> 
> drivers/power/da9052-battery.c: In function 'da9052_bat_read_volt':
> drivers/power/da9052-battery.c:293:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'da9052_adc_manual_read' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> drivers/power/da9052-battery.c: In function 'da9052_bat_check_presence':
> drivers/power/da9052-battery.c:306:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'da9052_adc_read_temp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> drivers/power/da9052-battery.c: In function 'da9052_determine_vc_tbl_index':
> drivers/power/da9052-battery.c:348:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> 
> Caused by commit ded7fc7b0550 ("power_supply: Add DA9052 battery driver").
> 
> The commit message says "This driver depends on DA9052 MFD core dirver for definitions and methods".  That core is presumably still pending inclusion.
> 
> I have used the battery tree from next-20120104 for today.
This patch depends upon Da9052/53 MFD core and also on one of its incremental patch for ADC that got these functions definitions. Below is that patch.
We had already posted this patch.

Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen <dchen@diasemi.com>
Signed-off-by: Ashish Jangam <ashish.jangam@kpitcummins.com>
---
 drivers/mfd/da9052-core.c         |  188 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/mfd/da9052/da9052.h |   22 +++++
 2 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/da9052-core.c b/drivers/mfd/da9052-core.c
index 5ddde2a..c21ce78 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/da9052-core.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/da9052-core.c
@@ -319,6 +319,162 @@ static bool da9052_reg_volatile(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
 	}
 }
 
+/*
+ * TBAT look-up table is computed from the R90 reg (8 bit register)
+ * reading as below. The battery temperature is in milliCentigrade
+ * TBAT = (1/(t1+1/298) - 273) * 1000 mC
+ * where t1 = (1/B)* ln(( ADCval * 2.5)/(R25*ITBAT*255))
+ * Default values are R25 = 10e3, B = 3380, ITBAT = 50e-6
+ * Example:
+ * R25=10E3, B=3380, ITBAT=50e-6, ADCVAL=62d calculates
+ * TBAT = 20015 mili degrees Centrigrade
+ *
+*/
+static const int32_t tbat_lookup[255] = {
+	183258, 144221, 124334, 111336, 101826, 94397, 88343, 83257,
+	78889, 75071, 71688, 68656, 65914, 63414, 61120, 59001,
+	570366, 55204, 53490, 51881, 50364, 48931, 47574, 46285,
+	45059, 43889, 42772, 41703, 40678, 39694, 38748, 37838,
+	36961, 36115, 35297, 34507, 33743, 33002, 32284, 31588,
+	30911, 30254, 29615, 28994, 28389, 27799, 27225, 26664,
+	26117, 25584, 25062, 24553, 24054, 23567, 23091, 22624,
+	22167, 21719, 21281, 20851, 20429, 20015, 19610, 19211,
+	18820, 18436, 18058, 17688, 17323, 16965, 16612, 16266,
+	15925, 15589, 15259, 14933, 14613, 14298, 13987, 13681,
+	13379, 13082, 12788, 12499, 12214, 11933, 11655, 11382,
+	11112, 10845, 10582, 10322, 10066, 9812, 9562, 9315,
+	9071, 8830, 8591, 8356, 8123, 7893, 7665, 7440,
+	7218, 6998, 6780, 6565, 6352, 6141, 5933, 5726,
+	5522, 5320, 5120, 4922, 4726, 4532, 4340, 4149,
+	3961, 3774, 3589, 3406, 3225, 3045, 2867, 2690,
+	2516, 2342, 2170, 2000, 1831, 1664, 1498, 1334,
+	1171, 1009, 849, 690, 532, 376, 221, 67,
+	-84, -236, -386, -535, -683, -830, -975, -1119,
+	-1263, -1405, -1546, -1686, -1825, -1964, -2101, -2237,
+	-2372, -2506, -2639, -2771, -2902, -3033, -3162, -3291,
+	-3418, -3545, -3671, -3796, -3920, -4044, -4166, -4288,
+	-4409, -4529, -4649, -4767, -4885, -5002, -5119, -5235,
+	-5349, -5464, -5577, -5690, -5802, -5913, -6024, -6134,
+	-6244, -6352, -6461, -6568, -6675, -6781, -6887, -6992,
+	-7096, -7200, -7303, -7406, -7508, -7609, -7710, -7810,
+	-7910, -8009, -8108, -8206, -8304, -8401, -8497, -8593,
+	-8689, -8784, -8878, -8972, -9066, -9159, -9251, -9343,
+	-9435, -9526, -9617, -9707, -9796, -9886, -9975, -10063,
+	-10151, -10238, -10325, -10412, -10839, -10923, -11007, -11090,
+	-11173, -11256, -11338, -11420, -11501, -11583, -11663, -11744,
+	-11823, -11903, -11982
+};
+
+static const u8 chan_mux[DA9052_ADC_VBBAT + 1] = {
+	[DA9052_ADC_VDDOUT]	= DA9052_ADC_MAN_MUXSEL_VDDOUT,
+	[DA9052_ADC_ICH]	= DA9052_ADC_MAN_MUXSEL_ICH,
+	[DA9052_ADC_TBAT]	= DA9052_ADC_MAN_MUXSEL_TBAT,
+	[DA9052_ADC_VBAT]	= DA9052_ADC_MAN_MUXSEL_VBAT,
+	[DA9052_ADC_IN4]	= DA9052_ADC_MAN_MUXSEL_AD4,
+	[DA9052_ADC_IN5]	= DA9052_ADC_MAN_MUXSEL_AD5,
+	[DA9052_ADC_IN6]	= DA9052_ADC_MAN_MUXSEL_AD6,
+	[DA9052_ADC_VBBAT]	= DA9052_ADC_MAN_MUXSEL_VBBAT
+};
+
+enum da9052_auxadc {
+	VDDOUT = DA9052_ADC_VDDOUT,
+	ICH = DA9052_ADC_ICH,
+	TBAT = DA9052_ADC_TBAT,
+	VBAT = DA9052_ADC_VBAT,
+	IN4 = DA9052_ADC_IN4,
+	IN5 = DA9052_ADC_IN5,
+	IN6 = DA9052_ADC_IN6,
+	VBBAT = DA9052_ADC_VBBAT,
+};
+
+struct da9052_auxadc_req {
+	struct list_head list;
+	enum da9052_auxadc input;
+	struct completion done;
+};
+
+int da9052_adc_manual_read(struct da9052 *da9052, unsigned char channel)
+{
+	struct da9052_auxadc_req *req;
+	int ret;
+	unsigned short calc_data;
+	unsigned short data;
+	unsigned char mux_sel;
+
+	if (channel > DA9052_ADC_VBBAT)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	req = kzalloc(sizeof(*req), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!req)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	init_completion(&req->done);
+	req->input = channel;
+
+	mutex_lock(&da9052->auxadc_lock);
+
+	/* Channel gets activated on enabling the Conversion bit */
+	mux_sel = chan_mux[channel] | DA9052_ADC_MAN_MAN_CONV;
+
+	if (da9052->auxadc_active) {
+		ret = -EBUSY;
+		goto err;
+	}
+
+	/* Enqueue the request */
+	list_add(&req->list, &da9052->auxadc_pending);
+
+	ret = da9052_reg_write(da9052, DA9052_ADC_MAN_REG, mux_sel);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto err;
+
+	da9052->auxadc_active = channel;
+
+	mutex_unlock(&da9052->auxadc_lock);
+
+	/* Wait for an interrupt */
+	wait_for_completion_timeout(&req->done, msecs_to_jiffies(500));
+
+	mutex_lock(&da9052->auxadc_lock);
+
+	ret = da9052_reg_read(da9052, DA9052_ADC_RES_H_REG);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto err;
+
+	calc_data = (unsigned short)ret;
+	data = calc_data << 2;
+
+	ret = da9052_reg_read(da9052, DA9052_ADC_RES_L_REG);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto err;
+
+	calc_data = (unsigned short)(ret & DA9052_ADC_RES_LSB);
+	data |= calc_data;
+
+	ret = data;
+
+	list_del(&req->list);
+err:
+	mutex_unlock(&da9052->auxadc_lock);
+	kfree(req);
+	return ret;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(da9052_adc_manual_read);
+
+int da9052_adc_read_temp(struct da9052 *da9052)
+{
+	int tbat;
+
+	tbat = da9052_reg_read(da9052, DA9052_TBAT_RES_REG);
+
+	if (tbat < 0)
+		return tbat;
+
+	/* ARRAY_SIZE check is not needed since TBAT is a 8-bit register */
+	return tbat_lookup[tbat - 1];
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(da9052_adc_read_temp);
+
 static struct resource da9052_rtc_resource = {
 	.name = "ALM",
 	.start = DA9052_IRQ_ALARM,
@@ -641,6 +797,25 @@ struct regmap_config da9052_regmap_config = {
 };
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(da9052_regmap_config);
 
+static irqreturn_t da9052_auxadc_irq(int irq, void *irq_data)
+{
+	struct da9052 *da9052 = irq_data;
+	struct da9052_auxadc_req *req;
+
+	mutex_lock(&da9052->auxadc_lock);
+
+	/* Wake up any threads waiting for this request */
+	list_for_each_entry(req, &da9052->auxadc_pending, list) {
+		if (req->input == da9052->auxadc_active)
+			complete(&req->done);
+	}
+	da9052->auxadc_active = 0;
+
+	mutex_unlock(&da9052->auxadc_lock);
+
+	return IRQ_HANDLED;
+}
+
 int __devinit da9052_device_init(struct da9052 *da9052, u8 chip_id)
 {
 	struct da9052_pdata *pdata = da9052->dev->platform_data;
@@ -648,11 +823,15 @@ int __devinit da9052_device_init(struct da9052 *da9052, u8 chip_id)
 	int ret;
 
 	mutex_init(&da9052->io_lock);
+	mutex_init(&da9052->auxadc_lock);
+
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&da9052->auxadc_pending);
 
 	if (pdata && pdata->init != NULL)
 		pdata->init(da9052);
 
 	da9052->chip_id = chip_id;
+	da9052->auxadc_active = 0;
 
 	if (!pdata || !pdata->irq_base)
 		da9052->irq_base = -1;
@@ -669,6 +848,15 @@ int __devinit da9052_device_init(struct da9052 *da9052, u8 chip_id)
 	desc = irq_to_desc(da9052->chip_irq);
 	da9052->irq_base = regmap_irq_chip_get_base(desc->action->dev_id);
 
+	ret = request_threaded_irq(da9052->irq_base + DA9052_IRQ_ADC_EOM,
+				   NULL, da9052_auxadc_irq,
+				   IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
+				   "adc irq", da9052);
+	if (ret != 0) {
+		dev_err(da9052->dev, "DA9052 ADC IRQ failed ret=%d\n", ret);
+		da9052->auxadc_active = -1;
+	}
+
 	ret = mfd_add_devices(da9052->dev, -1, da9052_subdev_info,
 			      ARRAY_SIZE(da9052_subdev_info), NULL, 0);
 	if (ret)
diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/da9052/da9052.h b/include/linux/mfd/da9052/da9052.h
index 5702d1b..6069c26 100644
--- a/include/linux/mfd/da9052/da9052.h
+++ b/include/linux/mfd/da9052/da9052.h
@@ -33,6 +33,20 @@
 
 #include <linux/mfd/da9052/reg.h>
 
+/* HWMON Channel Definations */
+#define DA9052_ADC_VDDOUT	0
+#define DA9052_ADC_ICH		1
+#define DA9052_ADC_TBAT	2
+#define DA9052_ADC_VBAT	3
+#define DA9052_ADC_IN4		4
+#define DA9052_ADC_IN5		5
+#define DA9052_ADC_IN6		6
+#define DA9052_ADC_TSI		7
+#define DA9052_ADC_TJUNC	8
+#define DA9052_ADC_VBBAT	9
+
+#define DA9052_MASK_ADC_EOM	0x2000
+
 #define DA9052_IRQ_DCIN	0
 #define DA9052_IRQ_VBUS	1
 #define DA9052_IRQ_DCINREM	2
@@ -77,16 +91,24 @@ struct da9052_pdata;
 
 struct da9052 {
 	struct mutex io_lock;
+	struct mutex auxadc_lock;
 
 	struct device *dev;
 	struct regmap *regmap;
 
+	struct list_head auxadc_pending;
+	u8 auxadc_active;
+
 	int irq_base;
 	u8 chip_id;
 
 	int chip_irq;
 };
 
+/* ADC API */
+int da9052_adc_manual_read(struct da9052 *da9052, unsigned char channel);
+int da9052_adc_read_temp(struct da9052 *da9052);
+
 /* Device I/O API */
 static inline int da9052_reg_read(struct da9052 *da9052, unsigned char reg)
 {
---
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the battery tree

[Anton Vorontsov]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 01:59:29PM +0530, Ashish Jangam wrote:
> > Hi Anton,
> > 
> > After merging the battery tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > drivers/power/da9052-battery.c: In function 'da9052_bat_read_volt':
> > drivers/power/da9052-battery.c:293:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'da9052_adc_manual_read' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > drivers/power/da9052-battery.c: In function 'da9052_bat_check_presence':
> > drivers/power/da9052-battery.c:306:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'da9052_adc_read_temp' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > drivers/power/da9052-battery.c: In function 'da9052_determine_vc_tbl_index':
> > drivers/power/da9052-battery.c:348:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
> > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> > 
> > Caused by commit ded7fc7b0550 ("power_supply: Add DA9052 battery driver").
> > 
> > The commit message says "This driver depends on DA9052 MFD core dirver for definitions and methods".  That core is presumably still pending inclusion.

Well, it is in the MFD tree already, otherwise allmodconfig would not
be able to select this driver.

> > I have used the battery tree from next-20120104 for today.
> This patch depends upon Da9052/53 MFD core and also on one of its incremental patch for ADC that got these functions definitions. Below is that patch.
> We had already posted this patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen <dchen@diasemi.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ashish Jangam <ashish.jangam@kpitcummins.com>
> ---

So, this patch should go via MFD tree asap. Otherwise, I'll have to
disable this driver by making it depend on 'broken' in Kconfig.

Thanks,

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the battery tree

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:10:37PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 01:59:29PM +0530, Ashish Jangam wrote:

> > > Caused by commit ded7fc7b0550 ("power_supply: Add DA9052 battery driver").

> > > The commit message says "This driver depends on DA9052 MFD core dirver for definitions and methods".  That core is presumably still pending inclusion.

> Well, it is in the MFD tree already, otherwise allmodconfig would not
> be able to select this driver.

It didn't actually go in via the MFD tree, it went in via regmap, but
same difference.

> > > I have used the battery tree from next-20120104 for today.
> > This patch depends upon Da9052/53 MFD core and also on one of its incremental patch for ADC that got these functions definitions. Below is that patch.
> > We had already posted this patch.

> So, this patch should go via MFD tree asap. Otherwise, I'll have to
> disable this driver by making it depend on 'broken' in Kconfig.

The regmap tree has already been merged by Linus which makes things a
bit tricky, it'd probably need to wait for -rc1 for Samuel to send it
givne that Linus was saying he really wanted everything to have been in
-next before the merge window.

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the battery tree

[Anton Vorontsov]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:53:18PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:10:37PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 01:59:29PM +0530, Ashish Jangam wrote:
> 
> > > > Caused by commit ded7fc7b0550 ("power_supply: Add DA9052 battery driver").
> 
> > > > The commit message says "This driver depends on DA9052 MFD core dirver for definitions and methods".  That core is presumably still pending inclusion.
> 
> > Well, it is in the MFD tree already, otherwise allmodconfig would not
> > be able to select this driver.
> 
> It didn't actually go in via the MFD tree, it went in via regmap, but
> same difference.
> 
> > > > I have used the battery tree from next-20120104 for today.
> > > This patch depends upon Da9052/53 MFD core and also on one of its incremental patch for ADC that got these functions definitions. Below is that patch.
> > > We had already posted this patch.
> 
> > So, this patch should go via MFD tree asap. Otherwise, I'll have to
> > disable this driver by making it depend on 'broken' in Kconfig.
> 
> The regmap tree has already been merged by Linus which makes things a
> bit tricky, it'd probably need to wait for -rc1 for Samuel to send it
> givne that Linus was saying he really wanted everything to have been in
> -next before the merge window.

OK. So, I'm marking it as broken...

Thanks,

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com