Re: [PATCH 05/14] mfd: sec: Use consistent S2MPS11 RTC alarm interrupt indexes

Lee Jones
2014-02-12T10:02:27Z

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 09:07 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > The S2MPS11 RTC has two alarms: alarm0 and alarm1 (corresponding
> > > interrupts are named similarly). Use consistent names for interrupts to
> > > limit possible errors.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/mfd/sec-irq.c | 8 ++++----
> > > include/linux/mfd/samsung/irq.h | 4 ++--
> > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > #define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTC60S_MASK (1 << 0)
> > > #define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTCA1_MASK (1 << 1)
> > > -#define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTCA2_MASK (1 << 2)
> > > +#define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTCA0_MASK (1 << 2)
> >
> > This doesn't look correct to me.
>
> It is just renaming RTCA2 to RTCA0 because there is no "alarm 2"
> registers. Actually the behavior of driver does not change (especially
> that there is no RTC driver for S2MPS11) but now it looks properly:
> - set ALARM0 registers for RTCA0 interrupt,
> - set ALARM1 registers for RTCA1 interrupt,
>
> This patch is not essential.

I mean the logic.

If these masks are used for registers then I assume RTCA0 would be
BIT(1) amd RTCA1 would be BIT(2), but this patch swaps them round.

> > > #define S2MPS11_IRQ_SMPL_MASK (1 << 3)
> > > #define S2MPS11_IRQ_RTC1S_MASK (1 << 4)
> > > #define S2MPS11_IRQ_WTSR_MASK (1 << 5)
> >
>

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog