From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751387AbcFXHTq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 03:19:46 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43129 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751216AbcFXHTn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 03:19:43 -0400
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:19:32 +0200
From: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Andrew Duggan <aduggan@synaptics.com>,
        Christopher Heiny <cheiny@synaptics.com>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - add SMBus support
Message-ID: <20160624071931.GP24234@mail.corp.redhat.com>
References: <1465484030-28838-1-git-send-email-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
 <1465484030-28838-5-git-send-email-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
 <20160623230635.GS32561@dtor-ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160623230635.GS32561@dtor-ws>
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 07:19:38 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Jun 23 2016 or thereabouts, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 04:53:50PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > +
> > +struct mapping_table_entry {
> > +	u16 rmiaddr;
> 
> Should be __le16 rmiaddr, otherwise:
> 
>   CHECK   drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_smbus.c
> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_smbus.c:116:33: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_smbus.c:116:33:    expected unsigned short [unsigned] [usertype] rmiaddr
> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_smbus.c:116:33:    got restricted __le16 [usertype] <noident>
> 
> > +
> > +static struct i2c_driver rmi_smb_driver;
> > +
> 
> I do not think this forward declaration is needed.
> 
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > +static int rmi_smb_suspend(struct device *dev)
> 
> __maybe_unused instead of #ifdef.
> 
> > +{
> > +	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > +	struct rmi_smb_xport *rmi_smb = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = rmi_driver_suspend(rmi_smb->xport.rmi_dev);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to suspend device: %d\n", ret);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> > +static int rmi_smb_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> 
> Same here?
> 
> > +{
> > +	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > +	struct rmi_smb_xport *rmi_smb = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = rmi_driver_suspend(rmi_smb->xport.rmi_dev);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to suspend device: %d\n", ret);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rmi_smb_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > +	struct rmi_smb_xport *rmi_smb = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = rmi_driver_resume(rmi_smb->xport.rmi_dev);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to resume device: %d\n", ret);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +static const struct dev_pm_ops rmi_smb_pm = {
> > +	SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(rmi_smb_suspend, NULL)
> > +	SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(rmi_smb_runtime_suspend, rmi_smb_runtime_resume,
> > +			   NULL)
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int rmi_smb_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct i2c_client *client = container_of(dev, struct i2c_client, dev);
> > +	struct rmi_smb_xport *rmi_smb = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > +	struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = rmi_smb->xport.rmi_dev;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	rmi_smb_reset(&rmi_smb->xport, 0);
> > +
> > +	rmi_reset(rmi_dev);
> > +
> > +	ret = rmi_driver_resume(rmi_smb->xport.rmi_dev);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to resume device: %d\n", ret);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct i2c_device_id rmi_id[] = {
> > +	{ "rmi4_smbus", 0 },
> > +	{ }
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, rmi_id);
> > +
> > +static struct i2c_driver rmi_smb_driver = {
> > +	.driver = {
> > +		.owner	= THIS_MODULE,
> > +		.name	= "rmi4_smbus",
> > +		.pm	= &rmi_smb_pm,
> > +		.resume	= rmi_smb_resume,
> 
> Why rmi_smb_resume is not part of rmi_smb_pm?
> 

This is because rmi_smbus device both have a PS/2 interface and a SMBus
one. I'll have to check again now that I have a slightly different way
of binding smbus devices in my tree, but the issue was:
- having resume part of pm means it will get caught by PM directly
- the PS/2 node gets also resumed by PM
- calling PS/2 commands during resume switches the devices back into
  PS/2 and stops the SMBus communication.

So it's easier to wait only for the PS/2 PM resume call which will call
the SMBus resume function when the device is in a proper state.

I'll send out the updated patch with your comments next week hopefully.

Cheers,
Benjamin