From: Minkyu Kang <mk7.kang@samsung.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 2/6] power: Explicitly select pmic device's bus
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:50:26 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52A01422.1080806@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1384250684-16124-3-git-send-email-l.krishna@samsung.com>
Dear Leela Krishna Amudala,
On 12/11/13 19:04, Leela Krishna Amudala wrote:
> The current pmic i2c code assumes the current i2c bus is
> the same as the pmic device's bus. There is nothing ensuring
> that to be true. Therefore, select the proper bus before performing
> a transaction.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Durbin <adurbin@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Leela Krishna Amudala <l.krishna@samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com>
> Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
> drivers/power/power_i2c.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/power/power_i2c.c b/drivers/power/power_i2c.c
> index ac76870..3cafa4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/power_i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/power_i2c.c
> @@ -16,9 +16,45 @@
> #include <i2c.h>
> #include <compiler.h>
>
> +static int pmic_select(struct pmic *p)
> +{
> + int ret, old_bus;
I think, old prefix is meaningless.
please fix it globally.
> +
> + old_bus = i2c_get_bus_num();
> + if (old_bus != p->bus) {
How about return immediately if get a bus.
if (old_bus == p->bus)
return old_bus;
> + debug("%s: Select bus %d\n", __func__, p->bus);
> + ret = i2c_set_bus_num(p->bus);
> + if (ret) {
> + debug("%s: Cannot select pmic %s, err %d\n",
> + __func__, p->name, ret);
> + return -1;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return old_bus;
> +}
> +
> +static int pmic_deselect(int old_bus)
in your patch, you never check a return value.
then is it void function or wrong usage?
And I think pmic_deselect function is almost same with pmic_select.
If you change the parameter for pmic_select to "int bus" then,
What is different with pmic_select?
for example.
bus = pmic_select(p->bus);
/* do something */
pmic_deselect(bus);
is same with.
bus = pmic_select(p->bus);
/* do something */
pmic_select(bus);
How do you think?
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (old_bus != i2c_get_bus_num()) {
> + ret = i2c_set_bus_num(old_bus);
> + debug("%s: Select bus %d\n", __func__, old_bus);
> + if (ret) {
> + debug("%s: Cannot restore i2c bus, err %d\n",
> + __func__, ret);
> + return -1;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> int pmic_reg_write(struct pmic *p, u32 reg, u32 val)
> {
> unsigned char buf[4] = { 0 };
> + int ret, old_bus;
>
> if (check_reg(p, reg))
> return -1;
> @@ -52,23 +88,33 @@ int pmic_reg_write(struct pmic *p, u32 reg, u32 val)
> return -1;
> }
>
> - if (i2c_write(pmic_i2c_addr, reg, 1, buf, pmic_i2c_tx_num))
> + old_bus = pmic_select(p);
> + if (old_bus < 0)
> return -1;
>
> - return 0;
> + ret = i2c_write(pmic_i2c_addr, reg, 1, buf, pmic_i2c_tx_num);
> + pmic_deselect(old_bus);
please add blank line.
> + return ret;
> }
>
> int pmic_reg_read(struct pmic *p, u32 reg, u32 *val)
> {
> unsigned char buf[4] = { 0 };
> u32 ret_val = 0;
> + int ret, old_bus;
>
> if (check_reg(p, reg))
> return -1;
>
> - if (i2c_read(pmic_i2c_addr, reg, 1, buf, pmic_i2c_tx_num))
> + old_bus = pmic_select(p);
> + if (old_bus < 0)
> return -1;
>
> + ret = i2c_read(pmic_i2c_addr, reg, 1, buf, pmic_i2c_tx_num);
> + pmic_deselect(old_bus);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> switch (pmic_i2c_tx_num) {
> case 3:
> if (p->sensor_byte_order == PMIC_SENSOR_BYTE_ORDER_BIG)
> @@ -98,9 +144,15 @@ int pmic_reg_read(struct pmic *p, u32 reg, u32 *val)
>
> int pmic_probe(struct pmic *p)
> {
> - i2c_set_bus_num(p->bus);
> + int ret, old_bus;
> +
> + old_bus = pmic_select(p);
> + if (old_bus < 0)
> + return -1;
please add blank line.
> debug("Bus: %d PMIC:%s probed!\n", p->bus, p->name);
> - if (i2c_probe(pmic_i2c_addr)) {
> + ret = i2c_probe(pmic_i2c_addr);
> + pmic_deselect(old_bus);
> + if (ret) {
> printf("Can't find PMIC:%s\n", p->name);
> return -1;
> }
>
Thanks,
Minkyu Kang.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-05 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-12 10:04 [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 0/6] SMDK5420: Add S2MPS11 pmic support to SMDK5420 Leela Krishna Amudala
2013-11-12 10:04 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 1/6] exynos: Use common pmic_reg_update() definition Leela Krishna Amudala
2013-12-05 5:50 ` Minkyu Kang
2014-01-02 23:36 ` Leela Krishna Amudala
2013-11-12 10:04 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 2/6] power: Explicitly select pmic device's bus Leela Krishna Amudala
2013-12-05 5:50 ` Minkyu Kang [this message]
2014-01-02 23:37 ` Leela Krishna Amudala
2014-01-03 1:11 ` Minkyu Kang
2013-11-12 10:04 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 3/6] FDT: Exynos5420: Add compatible srings for PMIC Leela Krishna Amudala
2013-11-12 10:04 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 4/6] SMDK5420: S2MPS11: Adds the register settings for S2MPS11 Leela Krishna Amudala
2013-11-12 10:04 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 5/6] exynos: Add a common DT based PMIC driver initialization Leela Krishna Amudala
2013-11-12 10:04 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 6/6] config: SMDK5420: Enable S2MPS11 pmic Leela Krishna Amudala
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52A01422.1080806@samsung.com \
--to=mk7.kang@samsung.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox