From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934001AbcKIQLg (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:11:36 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:35375 "EHLO mail-wm0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754144AbcKIQLe (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:11:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:14:19 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Keerthy Cc: tony@atomide.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, nm@ti.com, t-kristo@ti.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: palmas: Reset the POWERHOLD mux during power off Message-ID: <20161109161419.GJ13127@dell> References: <1477559414-12520-1-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> <1477559414-12520-3-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1477559414-12520-3-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Keerthy wrote: > POWERHOLD signal has higher priority over the DEV_ON bit. > So power off will not happen if the POWERHOLD is held high. > Hence reset the MUX to GPIO_7 mode to release the POWERHOLD > and the DEV_ON bit to take effect to power off the PMIC. > > PMIC Power off happens in dire situations like thermal shutdown > so irrespective of the POWERHOLD setting go ahead and turn off > the powerhold. Currently poweroff is broken on boards that have > powerhold enabled. This fixes poweroff on those boards. > > Signed-off-by: Keerthy > --- > drivers/mfd/palmas.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c > index 8f8bacb..8fbc5e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/palmas.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/palmas.c > @@ -430,10 +430,28 @@ static void palmas_power_off(void) > { > unsigned int addr; > int ret, slave; > + struct device_node *node; > + bool override_powerhold; > > if (!palmas_dev) Can this happen? > return; > > + node = palmas_dev->dev->of_node; Just do: struct device_node *np = palmas_dev->dev->of_node; > + override_powerhold = of_property_read_bool(node, > + "ti,palmas-override-powerhold"); Break the line after the '=' instead. > + if (override_powerhold) { if (of_property_read_bool(node, "ti,palmas-override-powerhold")) Then remove 'override_powerhold'. > + addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE, > + PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2); > + slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE); > + > + ret = regmap_update_bits(palmas_dev->regmap[slave], addr, > + PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2_GPIO_7_MASK, 0); > + if (ret) > + pr_err("%s: Unable to write PALMAS_PRIMARY_SECONDARY_PAD2 %d\n", > + __func__, ret); Don't use __func__ in live code. And use dev_err(); > + } > + > slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PMU_CONTROL_BASE); > addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PMU_CONTROL_BASE, PALMAS_DEV_CTRL); > -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog