Re: [PATCH v3 09/10] mfd: bd96801: Add ERRB IRQ

Lee Jones
2024-06-14T07:50:10Z

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> On 6/13/24 19:32, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Jun 2024, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> >
> > > The ROHM BD96801 "scalable PMIC" provides two physical IRQs. The ERRB
> > > handling can in many cases be omitted because it is used to inform fatal
> > > IRQs, which usually kill the power from the SOC.
> > >
> > > There may however be use-cases where the SOC has a 'back-up' emergency
> > > power source which allows some very short time of operation to try to
> > > gracefully shut down sensitive hardware. Furthermore, it is possible the
> > > processor controlling the PMIC is not powered by the PMIC. In such cases
> > > handling the ERRB IRQs may be beneficial.
> > >
> > > Add support for ERRB IRQs.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > Revision history:
> > > v2 =>:
> > > - No changes
> > > v1 => v2:
> > > - New patch
> > > ---
> > > drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c | 291 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 253 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c b/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c
> > > index 1c2a9591be7b..b7f073318873 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rohm-bd96801.c
> > > @@ -5,13 +5,9 @@
> > > * ROHM BD96801 PMIC driver
> > > *
> > > * This version of the "BD86801 scalable PMIC"'s driver supports only very
> > > - * basic set of the PMIC features. Most notably, there is no support for
> > > - * the ERRB interrupt and the configurations which should be done when the
> > > - * PMIC is in STBY mode.
> > > - *
> > > - * Supporting the ERRB interrupt would require dropping the regmap-IRQ
> > > - * usage or working around (or accepting a presense of) a naming conflict
> > > - * in debugFS IRQs.
> >
> > Why bother adding all that blurb in the first place?
>
> Because, I assume there are users who would like to have the ERRB in use.
> The main purpose of this comment is that any such users could
> a) see this version does not support ERRB.
> b) can find the original RFC with ERRB supportn and a workaround.
> c) know why this version does not work with ERRB and thus fix this
>
> It seems this ERRB support may be missing from upstream for a while, hence I
> think having this note is worthy until (if) this ERRB patch lands in
> upstream.

What I mean is - you're adding all of these extra lines in patch 3 and
removing them in patch 9.

> > > + * basic set of the PMIC features.
> > > + * Most notably, there is no support for the configurations which should
> > > + * be done when the PMIC is in STBY mode.
> > > *
> > > * Being able to reliably do the configurations like changing the
> > > * regulator safety limits (like limits for the over/under -voltages, over
> > > @@ -23,16 +19,14 @@
> > > * be the need to configure these safety limits. Hence it's not simple to
> > > * come up with a generic solution.
> > > *
> > > - * Users who require the ERRB handling and STBY state configurations can
> > > - * have a look at the original RFC:
> > > + * Users who require the STBY state configurations can have a look at the
> > > + * original RFC:
> > > * https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712920132.git.mazziesaccount@gmail.com/
> > > - * which implements a workaround to debugFS naming conflict and some of
> > > - * the safety limit configurations - but leaves the state change handling
> > > - * and synchronization to be implemented.
> > > + * which implements some of the safety limit configurations - but leaves the
> > > + * state change handling and synchronization to be implemented.
> > > *
> > > * It would be great to hear (and receive a patch!) if you implement the
> > > - * STBY configuration support or a proper fix to the debugFS naming
> > > - * conflict in your downstream driver ;)
> > > + * STBY configuration support or a proper fix in your downstream driver ;)
> > > */
>
> ...
>
> > > static int bd96801_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> > > {
> > > - struct regmap_irq_chip_data *intb_irq_data;
> > > + int i, ret, intb_irq, errb_irq, num_regu_irqs, num_intb, num_errb = 0;
> > > + int wdg_irq_no;
> > > + struct regmap_irq_chip_data *intb_irq_data, *errb_irq_data;
> > > + struct irq_domain *intb_domain, *errb_domain;
> > > + struct resource wdg_irq;
> > > const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> > > - struct irq_domain *intb_domain;
> > > + struct resource *regulator_res;
> > > struct regmap *regmap;
> > > - int ret, intb_irq;
> > > fwnode = dev_fwnode(&i2c->dev);
> > > if (!fwnode)
> > > @@ -212,10 +364,28 @@ static int bd96801_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> > > if (intb_irq < 0)
> > > return dev_err_probe(&i2c->dev, intb_irq, "INTB IRQ not configured\n");
> > > + num_intb = ARRAY_SIZE(regulator_intb_irqs);
> > > +
> > > + /* ERRB may be omitted if processor is powered by the PMIC */
> > > + errb_irq = fwnode_irq_get_byname(fwnode, "errb");
> > > + if (errb_irq < 0)
> > > + errb_irq = 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (errb_irq)
> > > + num_errb = ARRAY_SIZE(regulator_errb_irqs);
> > > +
> > > + num_regu_irqs = num_intb + num_errb;
> > > +
> > > + regulator_res = kcalloc(num_regu_irqs, sizeof(*regulator_res), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Why not devm_* and omit the kfree()?
>
> I used kcalloc() because this memory is only temporarily needed. It is not
> needed after devm_mfd_add_devices() returns.
>
> Sure the devm_* would simplify the error paths... Thanks!
>
> >
> > > + if (!regulator_res)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(i2c, &bd96801_regmap_config);
> > > - if (IS_ERR(regmap))
> > > - return dev_err_probe(&i2c->dev, PTR_ERR(regmap),
> > > + if (IS_ERR(regmap)) {
> > > + ret = dev_err_probe(&i2c->dev, PTR_ERR(regmap),
> > > "Regmap initialization failed\n");
> > > + goto free_out;
> > > + }
> > > ret = regmap_write(regmap, BD96801_LOCK_REG, BD96801_UNLOCK);
> > > if (ret)
> > > @@ -224,18 +394,63 @@ static int bd96801_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> > > ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&i2c->dev, regmap, intb_irq,
> > > IRQF_ONESHOT, 0, &bd96801_irq_chip_intb,
> > > &intb_irq_data);
> > > - if (ret)
> > > - return dev_err_probe(&i2c->dev, ret, "Failed to add INTB IRQ chip\n");
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + dev_err_probe(&i2c->dev, ret, "Failed to add INTB irq_chip\n");
> > > + goto free_out;
> > > + }
> > > intb_domain = regmap_irq_get_domain(intb_irq_data);
> > > - ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&i2c->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
> > > - bd96801_mfd_cells,
> > > - ARRAY_SIZE(bd96801_mfd_cells), NULL, 0,
> > > - intb_domain);
> > > -
> > > + /*
> > > + * MFD core code is built to handle only one IRQ domain. BD96801
> > > + * has two domains so we do IRQ mapping here and provide the
> > > + * already mapped IRQ numbers to sub-devices.
> > > + */
> > > + for (i = 0; i < num_intb; i++) {
> > > + struct resource *res = &regulator_res[i];
> > > +
> > > + *res = regulator_intb_irqs[i];
> > > + res->start = res->end = irq_create_mapping(intb_domain,
> > > + res->start);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + wdg_irq_no = irq_create_mapping(intb_domain, BD96801_WDT_ERR_STAT);
> > > + wdg_irq = DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(wdg_irq_no, "bd96801-wdg");
> > > + bd96801_mfd_cells[WDG_CELL].resources = &wdg_irq;
> > > + bd96801_mfd_cells[WDG_CELL].num_resources = 1;
> > > +
> > > + if (num_errb) {
> >
> > if (!num_errb)
> > goto skip_errb;
>
> Ok, can do.
>
> >
> > > + ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&i2c->dev, regmap, errb_irq,
> > > + IRQF_ONESHOT, 0,
> > > + &bd96801_irq_chip_errb,
> > > + &errb_irq_data);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + dev_err_probe(&i2c->dev, ret,
> > > + "Failed to add ERRB (%d) irq_chip\n",
> > > + errb_irq);
> > > + goto free_out;
> > > + }
> > > + errb_domain = regmap_irq_get_domain(errb_irq_data);
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < num_errb; i++) {
> > > + struct resource *res = &regulator_res[num_intb + i];
> > > +
> > > + *res = regulator_errb_irqs[i];
> > > + res->start = res->end = irq_create_mapping(errb_domain,
> > > + res->start);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> >
> > skip_errb:
>
> ...
>
> Thanks for comments Lee. Reworking this will have to wait for the irqdomain
> name suffix, which I will continue after Hervé has done his part of the
> irqdomain changes. I will omit this patch from the next re-spin of the
> series.

I'm in no rush. :)

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]