Re: [PATCH-v6 5/6] mfd: 88pm800: Set default interrupt clear method

Vaibhav Hiremath
2015-08-25T09:02:56Z

On Tuesday 25 August 2015 02:00 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday 24 August 2015 09:21 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday 24 August 2015 07:24 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As per the spec, bit 1 (INT_CLEAR_MODE) of reg addr 0xe
>>>>>> (page 0) controls the method of clearing interrupt
>>>>>> status of 88pm800 family of devices;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0: clear on read
>>>>>> 1: clear on write
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If pdata is not coming from board file, then set the
>>>>>> default irq clear method to "irq clear on write"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, as suggested by "Lee Jones" renaming variable field
>>>>>> to appropriate name and removed unnecessary field
>>>>>> pm80x_chip.irq_mode, using platform_data.irq_clr_method.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhao Ye <zhaoy@marvell.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/mfd/88pm800.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>>>>> include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h | 9 +++++++--
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> +#define PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR (0 << 1)
>>>>>> +#define PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR (1 << 1)
>>>>>
>>>>> Use BIT().
>>>>>
>>>>>> +/* Used by irq_clr_method */
>>>>>> +#define PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_READ 0
>>>>>> +#define PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_WRITE 1
>>>>>
>>>>>> - int irq_mode; /* Clear interrupt by read/write(0/1) */
>>>>>> + bool irq_clr_method; /* Clear interrupt by read/write(0/1) */
>>>>>
>>>>>> + irq_clr_mode = pdata->irq_clr_method == PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_WRITE ?
>>>>>> + PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR : PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR;
>>>>>> + ret = regmap_update_bits(map, PM800_WAKEUP2, mask, irq_clr_mode);
>>>>>
>>>>> This is pretty convoluted.
>>>>>
>>>>> For starters you're abusing the 'bool' type here. Bool is either
>>>>> 'true' or 'false', so at the very least you should rename
>>>>> 'irq_clr_method' to 'irq_clr_on_write'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you can do:
>>>>>
>>>>> irq_clr_mode = pdata->irq_clr_on_write ?
>>>>> PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR : PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have discussed on this, and went back-n-forth.
>>>> I think if I remember correctly, one of the version was using
>>>> true/false then we decided to rename it to relevant macro.
>>>>
>>>> If I am not wrong V4 version of this series is exactly same as what you
>>>> are referring to.
>>>
>>> Right. I made a few suggestions which vary in usefulness depending on
>>> how you plan to implement all of this. Unfortunately this is a bit of
>>> a bastardised version where some of it make sense and other parts
>>> could do with some improvement.
>>>
>>
>> This so called "basterdised version could have been avoided :)
>>
>> V2 version itself was clean and ready. It just got dragged into
>> multiple iterations.
>
> Don't kid yourself. There were still improvements to be made.
>

Yes indeed,
Moving to pdata was required. I was referring to logic part of it.

>>>>> However, what I suggest you really do is share
>>>>> PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_{READ,WRITE}_CLEAR with platform data and just pass
>>>>> the value through directly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we discussed about this also, and the reason I recall here is,
>>>>
>>>> we may need to control this from DT in the future so we decided to keep
>>>> it boolean in platform_data and have simple check before writing to
>>>> register.
>>>>
>>>> And I think that was also another reason we introduced
>>>>
>>>> /* Used by irq_clr_method */
>>>> #define PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_READ 0
>>>> #define PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_WRITE 1
>>>
>>> I think these are still required. So it would look like this:
>>>
>>
>> NO. I think you are confused here,
>> We have two different macros playing around here,
>>
>>
>> +/* Used by irq_clr_method */
>> +#define PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_READ 0
>> +#define PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_WRITE 1
>>
>> /* Used to write to register */
>> +#define PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR (0 << 1)
>> +#define PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR (1 << 1)
>
> I know. I used both of them *correctly* in my example below. No
> confusion here.
>
>>> == Platform data ==
>>>
>>> struct pdata {
>>> bool clear_irq_on_write;
>>> };
>>>
>>> pdata->clear_irq_on_write = PM800_IRQ_CLR_ON_{READ,WRITE};
>>>
>>> == Driver ==
>>>
>>> irq_clr_mode = pdata->clear_irq_on_write ?
>>> PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR : PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR;
>>> regmap_update_bits(map, PM800_WAKEUP2, mask, irq_clr_mode);
>>>
>>

The V2 version had

irq_clr_mode = (chip->irq_clr_on_wr) ?
PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR :
PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR;
ret = regmap_update_bits(map, PM800_WAKEUP2, mask,
irq_clr_mode);

Which is exactly same as your example above, except pdata moment.

Lets not discuss too much on this, I think its time for conclusion :)

Your below example looks even better to me. So I will adopt below
example and resubmit the series.

>> Please check V2, which is exactly same as above.
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6627781/
>>
>>
>> If you are OK with it, I will spin another version and submit it.
>
> If you can't use the value directly, which if you want to pull the
> value from DT you can't, then either use the method above, or
> something like this might be better:
>
> int clear_on_write = 0;
>
> if (pdata->clear_irq_on_write)
> clear_on_write = PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_WRITE_CLEAR;
>
> .. this way you only need to add one new define and you can drop
> PM800_WAKEUP2_INT_READ_CLEAR altogether. This is better, because it
> will aid you to move to the BIT() macro easier (there is no BIT()
> value for shifting 0's).
>

Just to clarify, I will adopt this implementation.

Thanks,
Vaibhav