mfd: max77686: Fix parent of rtc device
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/1 mfd: max77686: Fix parent of rtc device
rtc have different i2c client than power(pmic) block. So rtc device should sit under its own i2c client in device hierarchy, which reflects in sysfs also. This patch modifies code to register rtc cell with rtc->dev as parent.
Without this patch :
driver max77686-pmic modalias power uevent max77686-clk max77686-rtc name subsystem
After applying patch :
driver/ modalias power/ uevent max77686-rtc/ name subsystem/
---
Or Can we follow another (exhaustive but more cleaner) approach, which will be more like code refactoring and cleanup rather than only fix:
Since rtc uses i2c client, which gets created using i2c_new_dummy() and is not shared by any other cell of max77686. So we can covert rtc platform driver itself to i2c client driver. It will also allow to expilicitly describe max77686-rtc in DT which we can't do now.
It can be applicable to some other existing and new mfd pmic drivers. Any suggestion/comments ?
--- drivers/mfd/max77686.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/mfd/max77686.c +20 -2
@@ -39,10 +39,13 @@static const struct mfd_cell max77686_devs[] = { { .name ="max77686-pmic" , }, - { .name ="max77686-rtc" , }, { .name ="max77686-clk" , }, }; +static const struct mfd_cell max77686_rtc_dev[] = { + { .name ="max77686-rtc" , }, +}; +static const struct mfd_cell max77802_devs[] = { { .name ="max77802-pmic" , }, { .name ="max77802-clk" , },
@@ -332,14 +335,27 @@ static int max77686_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, goto err_del_irqc; } +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) { + ret =mfd_add_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev,-1 , max77686_rtc_dev, +1 ,NULL ,0 ,NULL ); +if (ret <0 ) { +dev_err (&max77686->rtc->dev, +"failed to add RTC device %d\n" , ret); + goto err_del_rtc_irqc; + } + } + ret =mfd_add_devices (max77686->dev,-1 , cells, n_devs,NULL ,0 ,NULL );if (ret <0 ) {dev_err (&i2c->dev,"failed to add MFD devices: %d\n" , ret); - goto err_del_rtc_irqc; + goto err_del_rtc_dev; }return 0 ; +err_del_rtc_dev: +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) +mfd_remove_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev); err_del_rtc_irqc:regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->rtc_irq_data); err_del_irqc:
@@ -356,6 +372,8 @@ static int max77686_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)struct max77686_dev *max77686 =i2c_get_clientdata (i2c);mfd_remove_devices (max77686->dev); +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) +mfd_remove_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev);regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->rtc_irq_data);regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->irq_data);
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
PATCH 1/1 mfd: max77686: Fix parent of rtc device
rtc have different i2c client than power(pmic) block. So rtc device should sit under its own i2c client in device hierarchy, which reflects in sysfs also. This patch modifies code to register rtc cell with rtc->dev as parent.
Without this patch :
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0009/ driver max77686-pmic modalias power uevent max77686-clk max77686-rtc name subsystem
After applying patch :
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0006/ driver/ modalias power/ uevent max77686-rtc/ name subsystem/
---
Or Can we follow another (exhaustive but more cleaner) approach, which will be more like code refactoring and cleanup rather than only fix:
Since rtc uses i2c client, which gets created using i2c_new_dummy() and is not shared by any other cell of max77686. So we can covert rtc platform driver itself to i2c client driver. It will also allow to expilicitly describe max77686-rtc in DT which we can't do now.
It can be applicable to some other existing and new mfd pmic drivers. Any suggestion/comments ?
--- drivers/mfd/max77686.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/mfd/max77686.c +20 -2
@@ -39,10 +39,13 @@static const struct mfd_cell max77686_devs[] = { { .name ="max77686-pmic" , }, - { .name ="max77686-rtc" , }, { .name ="max77686-clk" , }, }; +static const struct mfd_cell max77686_rtc_dev[] = { + { .name ="max77686-rtc" , }, +}; +static const struct mfd_cell max77802_devs[] = { { .name ="max77802-pmic" , }, { .name ="max77802-clk" , },
@@ -332,14 +335,27 @@ static int max77686_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, goto err_del_irqc; } +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) { + ret =mfd_add_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev,-1 , max77686_rtc_dev, +1 ,NULL ,0 ,NULL ); +if (ret <0 ) { +dev_err (&max77686->rtc->dev, +"failed to add RTC device %d\n" , ret); + goto err_del_rtc_irqc; + } + } + ret =mfd_add_devices (max77686->dev,-1 , cells, n_devs,NULL ,0 ,NULL );if (ret <0 ) {dev_err (&i2c->dev,"failed to add MFD devices: %d\n" , ret); - goto err_del_rtc_irqc; + goto err_del_rtc_dev; }return 0 ; +err_del_rtc_dev: +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) +mfd_remove_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev); err_del_rtc_irqc:regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->rtc_irq_data); err_del_irqc:
@@ -356,6 +372,8 @@ static int max77686_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)struct max77686_dev *max77686 =i2c_get_clientdata (i2c);mfd_remove_devices (max77686->dev); +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) +mfd_remove_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev);regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->rtc_irq_data);regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->irq_data);
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
PATCH 1/1 mfd: max77686: Fix parent of rtc device
Quoted 17 lines · Yadwinder Singh Brar
rtc have different i2c client than power(pmic) block. So rtc device should sit under its own i2c client in device hierarchy, which reflects in sysfs also. This patch modifies code to register rtc cell with
rtc->devas parent.Without this patch :
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0009/ driver max77686-pmic modalias power uevent max77686-clk max77686-rtc name subsystemAfter applying patch :
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0006/ driver/ modalias power/ uevent max77686-rtc/ name subsystem/Signed-off-by Yadwinder Singh Brar <[email protected]>---
Quoted 8 lines
Or Can we follow another (exhaustive but more cleaner) approach, which will be more like code refactoring and cleanup rather than only fix:
Since rtc uses i2c client, which gets created usingi2c_new_dummy()and is not shared by any other cell of max77686. So we can covert rtc platform driver itself to i2c client driver. It will also allow to expilicitly describe max77686-rtc in DT which we can't do now.
It can be applicable to some other existing and new mfd pmic drivers. Any suggestion/comments ?
Hi,
What kind of problem is solved by this patch?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Quoted 63 lines
--- drivers/mfd/max77686.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/mfd/max77686.c +20
-2@@ -39,10 +39,13 @@static const struct mfd_cell max77686_devs[] = { { .name ="max77686-pmic" , }, - { .name ="max77686-rtc" , }, { .name ="max77686-clk" , }, }; +static const struct mfd_cell max77686_rtc_dev[] = { + { .name ="max77686-rtc" , }, +}; +static const struct mfd_cell max77802_devs[] = { { .name ="max77802-pmic" , }, { .name ="max77802-clk" , },@@ -332,14 +335,27 @@ static int max77686_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c, goto err_del_irqc; } +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) { + ret =mfd_add_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev,-1 , max77686_rtc_dev, +1 ,NULL ,0 ,NULL ); +if (ret <0 ) { +dev_err (&max77686->rtc->dev, +"failed to add RTC device %d\n" , ret); + goto err_del_rtc_irqc; + } + } + ret =mfd_add_devices (max77686->dev,-1 , cells, n_devs,NULL ,0 ,NULL );if (ret <0 ) {dev_err (&i2c->dev,"failed to add MFD devices: %d\n" , ret); - goto err_del_rtc_irqc; + goto err_del_rtc_dev; }return 0 ; +err_del_rtc_dev: +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) +mfd_remove_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev); err_del_rtc_irqc:regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->rtc_irq_data); err_del_irqc:@@ -356,6 +372,8 @@ static int max77686_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)struct max77686_dev *max77686 =i2c_get_clientdata (i2c);mfd_remove_devices (max77686->dev); +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) +mfd_remove_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev);regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->rtc_irq_data);regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->irq_data);
PATCH 1/1 mfd: max77686: Fix parent of rtc device
Quoted 30 lines · Krzysztof Kozłowski
Quoted 2 lines · Yadwinder Singh Brar
rtc have different i2c client than power(pmic) block. So rtc device should sit under its own i2c client in device hierarchy, which
reflects in sysfs also.
Quoted 1 line
This patch modifies code to register rtc cell with
rtc->devasparent.
Quoted 7 lines
Without this patch :
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0009/ driver max77686-pmic modalias power uevent max77686-clk max77686-rtc name subsystemAfter applying patch :
Quoted 8 lines
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0006/ driver/ modalias power/ uevent max77686-rtc/ name subsystem/Signed-off-by Yadwinder Singh Brar <[email protected]>---
Or Can we follow another (exhaustive but more cleaner) approach,
which
Quoted 7 lines
will be more like code refactoring and cleanup rather than only fix:
Since rtc uses i2c client, which gets created usingi2c_new_dummy()and is not shared by any other cell of max77686. So we can covert rtc platform driver itself to i2c client driver. It will also allow to expilicitly describe max77686-rtc in DT which we can't do now. It can be applicable to some other existing and new mfd pmic drivers. Any suggestion/comments ?
Quoted 4 lines
Hi,
What kind of problem is solved by this patch?
Let me try to explain once again :)
After seeing a message "i2c i2c-0: .... , addr=0x06, .." in dmesg log, I was not able to find any such device in sysfs as well as device tree. There was no device under /sys/class/i2c-dev/i2c-0/device/0-0006/ Isn't something wrong or missing ?
This patch fixes that missing parent child relation, which IMO should be correct always, though it causes any major problem or not.
Still I am thinking, 0-0006 slave device(rtc) shouldn't also appear in DT? As DT should describe the hardware that we are using.
Warm regards,
Yadwinder
Quoted 71 lines
Best regards,
Krzysztofdrivers/mfd/max77686.c static int max77686_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client
Quoted 25 lines
--- drivers/mfd/max77686.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/mfd/max77686.c index renamed from drivers/mfd/max77686.c +0
-0929795e..22c0948 100644
drivers/mfd/max77686.c +4
-1@@ -39,10 +39,13 @@static const struct mfd_cell max77686_devs[] = { { .name ="max77686-pmic" , }, - { .name ="max77686-rtc" , }, { .name ="max77686-clk" , }, }; +static const struct mfd_cell max77686_rtc_dev[] = { + { .name ="max77686-rtc" , }, +}; +static const struct mfd_cell max77802_devs[] = { { .name ="max77802-pmic" , }, { .name ="max77802-clk" , },@@ -332,14 +335,27 @@ static int max77686_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client*i2c,
drivers/mfd/max77686.c static int max77686_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/mfd/max77686.c +2
-0goto err_del_irqc; } +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) { + ret = mfd_add_devices(&max77686->rtc->dev, -1,
max77686_rtc_dev,drivers/mfd/max77686.c static int max77686_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/mfd/max77686.c +8
-0+ 1, NULL, 0, NULL); +if (ret <0 ) { +dev_err (&max77686->rtc->dev, +"failed to add RTC device %d\n" , ret); + goto err_del_rtc_irqc; + } + } + ret = mfd_add_devices(max77686->dev, -1, cells, n_devs, NULL, 0,NULL);
drivers/mfd/max77686.c static int max77686_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client
Quoted 15 lines
drivers/mfd/max77686.c +4
-1if (ret <0 ) {dev_err (&i2c->dev,"failed to add MFD devices: %d\n" , ret); - goto err_del_rtc_irqc; + goto err_del_rtc_dev; }return 0 ; +err_del_rtc_dev: +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) +mfd_remove_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev); err_del_rtc_irqc:regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->rtc_irq_data); err_del_irqc:@@ -356,6 +372,8 @@ static int max77686_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client*i2c)
Quoted 9 lines
drivers/mfd/max77686.c +2
-0struct max77686_dev *max77686 =i2c_get_clientdata (i2c);mfd_remove_devices (max77686->dev); +if (max77686->type ==TYPE_MAX77686 ) +mfd_remove_devices (&max77686->rtc->dev);regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->rtc_irq_data);regmap_del_irq_chip (max77686->irq, max77686->irq_data);
PATCH 1/1 mfd: max77686: Fix parent of rtc device
Quoted 37 lines · Yadwinder Singh Brar
Quoted 30 lines · Krzysztof Koz?owski
Quoted 2 lines · Yadwinder Singh Brar
rtc have different i2c client than power(pmic) block. So rtc device should sit under its own i2c client in device hierarchy, which
reflects in sysfs also.
Quoted 1 line
This patch modifies code to register rtc cell with
rtc->devasparent.
Quoted 7 lines
Without this patch :
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0009/ driver max77686-pmic modalias power uevent max77686-clk max77686-rtc name subsystemAfter applying patch :
Quoted 8 lines
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0006/ driver/ modalias power/ uevent max77686-rtc/ name subsystem/Signed-off-by Yadwinder Singh Brar <[email protected]>---
Or Can we follow another (exhaustive but more cleaner) approach,
which
Quoted 7 lines
will be more like code refactoring and cleanup rather than only fix:
Since rtc uses i2c client, which gets created usingi2c_new_dummy()and is not shared by any other cell of max77686. So we can covert rtc platform driver itself to i2c client driver. It will also allow to expilicitly describe max77686-rtc in DT which we can't do now. It can be applicable to some other existing and new mfd pmic drivers. Any suggestion/comments ?Quoted 4 lines
Hi,
What kind of problem is solved by this patch?
Quoted 8 lines
Let me try to explain once again :)
After seeing a message "i2c i2c-0: .... , addr=0x06, .." in dmesg log, I was not able to find any such device in sysfs as well as device tree. There was no device under/sys/class/i2c-dev/i2c-0/device/0-0006/Isn't something wrong or missing ?This patch fixes that missing parent child relation, which IMO should be correct always, though it causes any major problem or not.
OK, I got your point. I'm fine with both solutions and the patch looks good, so:
Quoted 2 lines
Still I am thinking, 0-0006 slave device(rtc) shouldn't also appear in DT? As DT should describe the hardware that we are using.
Your patch properly describes the hardware. However from driver perspective, the RTC here is not an standalone driver and depends on parent (MFD) driver.
Although max77686 RTC could have its own DeviceTree node, I think it should still be put under main MFD driver's node, because the parent manages stuff like interrupts.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
PATCH 1/1 mfd: max77686: Fix parent of rtc device
Quoted 52 lines · Krzysztof Kozlowski
Quoted 6 lines · Yadwinder Singh Brar
Quoted 4 lines · Krzysztof Kozłowski
Quoted 3 lines · Yadwinder Singh Brar
rtc have different i2c client than power(pmic) block. So rtc device should sit under its own i2c client in device hierarchy, which
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
reflects in sysfs also.
Quoted 1 line
This patch modifies code to register rtc cell with
rtc->devasparent.
Quoted 4 lines
Without this patch :
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0009/ driver max77686-pmic modalias poweruevent
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
max77686-clk max77686-rtc name subsystem
After applying patch :
# ls /sys/class/i2c-adapter/i2c-0/0-0006/ driver/ modalias power/ uevent max77686-rtc/ name subsystem/Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Signed-off-by Yadwinder Singh Brar <[email protected]>---
Or Can we follow another (exhaustive but more cleaner) approach,
which
Quoted 1 line
will be more like code refactoring and cleanup rather than only
fix:
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Since rtc uses i2c client, which gets created using
i2c_new_dummy()and is not shared by any other cell of max77686. So we can covert rtc platform driver itself to i2c client driver. It will also allow to expilicitly describe max77686-rtc in DTwhich we can't do now.
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
It can be applicable to some other existing and new mfd pmic
drivers.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Any suggestion/comments ?
Hi,
What kind of problem is solved by this patch?
Let me try to explain once again :)
After seeing a message "i2c i2c-0: .... , addr=0x06, .." in dmesglog,
Quoted 1 line
I was not able to find any such device in sysfs as well as device
tree.
Quoted 3 lines
There was no device under
/sys/class/i2c-dev/i2c-0/device/0-0006/Isn't something wrong or missing ?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
This patch fixes that missing parent child relation, which IMO should be correct always, though it causes any major problem or not.
OK, I got your point. I'm fine with both solutions and the patch looks good, so:
Reviewed-by Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Thanks for reviewing :).
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Still I am thinking, 0-0006 slave device(rtc) shouldn't also appear
in DT?
Quoted 1 line
As DT should describe the hardware that we are using.
Your patch properly describes the hardware. However from driver perspective, the RTC here is not an standalone driver and depends on parent (MFD) driver.
Hmm ... I can't see any hard dependency. I think rtc can survive as independent i2c device. And rtc(@06) is more like a sibling of existing MFD driver(max77686@09)
Quoted 4 lines
Although max77686 RTC could have its own DeviceTree node, I think it should still be put under main MFD driver's node, because the parent manages stuff like interrupts.
I think it will not sound good to have something like max77686-rtc@06 node under max77686@09 node, since both are kind of siblings. And interrupts should not be a restricting factor, In case of max77686 interrupt source and mask registers for rtc also lie in rtc i2c register bank so we can add an irq_chip from rtc driver itself.
Only thing I can see which can be little bit tricky, is providing alarm->pending info(pending interrupt) in alarm_read() callback in rtc as currently its based on MAX77686_REG_STATUS2 which is only common register in power(pmic) register bank of max77686. Though in practical scenarios it may not be non zero, since reading once source register clears this status also, but we may have to keep it for sake of functionality completeness.
I can’t see any way(something similar to syscon) for sharing i2c regmap between independent drivers, other than getting reference to regmap from i2c device found by of_find_i2c_device_by_node(). Anyone can suggest better idea?
Best Regards,
Yadwinder