From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PHY: sunxi: Add driver for sunxi usb phy Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:48:20 +0530 Message-ID: <5314811C.1000905@ti.com> References: <1393693766-15352-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1393693766-15352-2-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <53121AF4.4080802@ti.com> <531232BC.2070903@redhat.com> Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <531232BC.2070903-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Hans de Goede Cc: Maxime Ripard , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree , linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Sunday 02 March 2014 12:49 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/01/2014 06:37 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Saturday 01 March 2014 10:39 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> The Allwinner A1x / A2x SoCs have 2 or 3 usb phys which are all accessed >>> through a single set of registers. Besides this there are also some other >>> phy related bits which need poking, which are per phy, but shared between the >>> ohci and ehci controllers, so these are also controlled from this new phy >>> driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede >>> Acked-by: Maxime Ripard >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/phy/sun4i-usb-phy.txt | 26 ++ >>> drivers/phy/Kconfig | 11 + >>> drivers/phy/Makefile | 1 + >>> drivers/phy/phy-sun4i-usb.c | 331 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 4 files changed, 369 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/sun4i-usb-phy.txt >>> create mode 100644 drivers/phy/phy-sun4i-usb.c >>> >> .. >> >> . >> . >> >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_init(struct phy *_phy) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy *phy = phy_get_drvdata(_phy); >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy_data *data = to_sun4i_usb_phy_data(phy); >>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(data->clk); >>> + if (ret) >> dev_err here? > > I would expect the clk subsys to print an error if anything goes > wrong here, repeating that error in the device driver seems > not useful to me. > > Note that this practice of simply propagating the error is a common > pattern in many many users of the clk / reset / regulator framework. > > Also can I please get one final review of this patch rather then > a round of comments ending with: > > "If you can fix these minor comments while changing the $subject (PHY: sunxi) it > should be good to get merged." > > Only to get more review comments when I've already fixed the minor > comments ? > >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> + ret = reset_control_deassert(phy->reset); >>> + if (ret) { >> >> here too.. > > idem. > >>> + clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> + >>> + /* Adjust PHY's magnitude and rate */ >>> + sun4i_usb_phy_write(phy, PHY_TX_AMPLITUDE_TUNE, 0x14, 5); >>> + >>> + /* Disconnect threshold adjustment */ >>> + sun4i_usb_phy_write(phy, PHY_DISCON_TH_SEL, data->disc_thresh, 2); >>> + >>> + sun4i_usb_phy_passby(phy, 1); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_exit(struct phy *_phy) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy *phy = phy_get_drvdata(_phy); >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy_data *data = to_sun4i_usb_phy_data(phy); >>> + >>> + sun4i_usb_phy_passby(phy, 0); >>> + reset_control_assert(phy->reset); >>> + clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_power_on(struct phy *_phy) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy *phy = phy_get_drvdata(_phy); >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + >>> + if (phy->vbus) >>> + ret = regulator_enable(phy->vbus); >> dev_err here too.. > > idem. > >>> + >>> + return ret; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_power_off(struct phy *_phy) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy *phy = phy_get_drvdata(_phy); >>> + >>> + if (phy->vbus) >>> + regulator_disable(phy->vbus); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static struct phy_ops sun4i_usb_phy_ops = { >>> + .init = sun4i_usb_phy_init, >>> + .exit = sun4i_usb_phy_exit, >>> + .power_on = sun4i_usb_phy_power_on, >>> + .power_off = sun4i_usb_phy_power_off, >>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE, >>> +}; >>> + >>> +static struct phy *sun4i_usb_phy_xlate(struct device *dev, >>> + struct of_phandle_args *args) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>> + >>> + if (WARN_ON(args->args[0] == 0 || args->args[0] >= data->num_phys)) >>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>> + >>> + return data->phys[args->args[0]].phy; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy_data *data; >>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; >>> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node; >>> + void __iomem *pmu = NULL; >>> + struct phy_provider *phy_provider; >>> + struct reset_control *reset; >>> + struct regulator *vbus; >>> + struct resource *res; >>> + struct phy *phy; >>> + char name[16]; >>> + int i; >>> + >>> + data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!data) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + mutex_init(&data->mutex); >>> + >>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "allwinner,sun5i-a13-usb-phy")) >>> + data->num_phys = 2; >>> + else >>> + data->num_phys = 3; >>> + >>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "allwinner,sun4i-a10-usb-phy")) >>> + data->disc_thresh = 3; >>> + else >>> + data->disc_thresh = 2; >> >> These 'data' can actually be part of 'of_device_id' table and can be obtained by using 'of_match_device'. > > This was already suggested by Maxime around the time of v2, and > I responded with this: > > "The problem with using the of_device_id .data field is that I can only > store a single integer there. To store 2 I need to: define a struct, > create an array of these structs with initialization. Create an enum for > indexing the array which must be kept in sync with the initializers > manually, store either the index, or a direct pointer to the correct array > entry into the .data field, add code to get the of_device_id from the > compatible string, and then finally extract the settings from the struct > again. > > See IE how this is done in drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c, I've tried > to come up with a simpler way and failed, for ahci_platform.c the > struct with per compatible-string data is quite big so it makes some > sense to use this construction. Here however not so much, this adds a > whole lot of unnecessary extra code + indirection. I esp. object against > the indirection as that unnecessarily makes it harder to follow whats > going on." alright.. missed that earlier. Sorry. -Kishon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kishon@ti.com (Kishon Vijay Abraham I) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:48:20 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v4] PHY: sunxi: Add driver for sunxi usb phy In-Reply-To: <531232BC.2070903@redhat.com> References: <1393693766-15352-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1393693766-15352-2-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <53121AF4.4080802@ti.com> <531232BC.2070903@redhat.com> Message-ID: <5314811C.1000905@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Sunday 02 March 2014 12:49 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/01/2014 06:37 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Saturday 01 March 2014 10:39 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> The Allwinner A1x / A2x SoCs have 2 or 3 usb phys which are all accessed >>> through a single set of registers. Besides this there are also some other >>> phy related bits which need poking, which are per phy, but shared between the >>> ohci and ehci controllers, so these are also controlled from this new phy >>> driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede >>> Acked-by: Maxime Ripard >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/phy/sun4i-usb-phy.txt | 26 ++ >>> drivers/phy/Kconfig | 11 + >>> drivers/phy/Makefile | 1 + >>> drivers/phy/phy-sun4i-usb.c | 331 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 4 files changed, 369 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/sun4i-usb-phy.txt >>> create mode 100644 drivers/phy/phy-sun4i-usb.c >>> >> .. >> >> . >> . >> >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_init(struct phy *_phy) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy *phy = phy_get_drvdata(_phy); >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy_data *data = to_sun4i_usb_phy_data(phy); >>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(data->clk); >>> + if (ret) >> dev_err here? > > I would expect the clk subsys to print an error if anything goes > wrong here, repeating that error in the device driver seems > not useful to me. > > Note that this practice of simply propagating the error is a common > pattern in many many users of the clk / reset / regulator framework. > > Also can I please get one final review of this patch rather then > a round of comments ending with: > > "If you can fix these minor comments while changing the $subject (PHY: sunxi) it > should be good to get merged." > > Only to get more review comments when I've already fixed the minor > comments ? > >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> + ret = reset_control_deassert(phy->reset); >>> + if (ret) { >> >> here too.. > > idem. > >>> + clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> + >>> + /* Adjust PHY's magnitude and rate */ >>> + sun4i_usb_phy_write(phy, PHY_TX_AMPLITUDE_TUNE, 0x14, 5); >>> + >>> + /* Disconnect threshold adjustment */ >>> + sun4i_usb_phy_write(phy, PHY_DISCON_TH_SEL, data->disc_thresh, 2); >>> + >>> + sun4i_usb_phy_passby(phy, 1); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_exit(struct phy *_phy) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy *phy = phy_get_drvdata(_phy); >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy_data *data = to_sun4i_usb_phy_data(phy); >>> + >>> + sun4i_usb_phy_passby(phy, 0); >>> + reset_control_assert(phy->reset); >>> + clk_disable_unprepare(data->clk); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_power_on(struct phy *_phy) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy *phy = phy_get_drvdata(_phy); >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + >>> + if (phy->vbus) >>> + ret = regulator_enable(phy->vbus); >> dev_err here too.. > > idem. > >>> + >>> + return ret; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_power_off(struct phy *_phy) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy *phy = phy_get_drvdata(_phy); >>> + >>> + if (phy->vbus) >>> + regulator_disable(phy->vbus); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static struct phy_ops sun4i_usb_phy_ops = { >>> + .init = sun4i_usb_phy_init, >>> + .exit = sun4i_usb_phy_exit, >>> + .power_on = sun4i_usb_phy_power_on, >>> + .power_off = sun4i_usb_phy_power_off, >>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE, >>> +}; >>> + >>> +static struct phy *sun4i_usb_phy_xlate(struct device *dev, >>> + struct of_phandle_args *args) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>> + >>> + if (WARN_ON(args->args[0] == 0 || args->args[0] >= data->num_phys)) >>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >>> + >>> + return data->phys[args->args[0]].phy; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int sun4i_usb_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> +{ >>> + struct sun4i_usb_phy_data *data; >>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; >>> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node; >>> + void __iomem *pmu = NULL; >>> + struct phy_provider *phy_provider; >>> + struct reset_control *reset; >>> + struct regulator *vbus; >>> + struct resource *res; >>> + struct phy *phy; >>> + char name[16]; >>> + int i; >>> + >>> + data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!data) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + mutex_init(&data->mutex); >>> + >>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "allwinner,sun5i-a13-usb-phy")) >>> + data->num_phys = 2; >>> + else >>> + data->num_phys = 3; >>> + >>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "allwinner,sun4i-a10-usb-phy")) >>> + data->disc_thresh = 3; >>> + else >>> + data->disc_thresh = 2; >> >> These 'data' can actually be part of 'of_device_id' table and can be obtained by using 'of_match_device'. > > This was already suggested by Maxime around the time of v2, and > I responded with this: > > "The problem with using the of_device_id .data field is that I can only > store a single integer there. To store 2 I need to: define a struct, > create an array of these structs with initialization. Create an enum for > indexing the array which must be kept in sync with the initializers > manually, store either the index, or a direct pointer to the correct array > entry into the .data field, add code to get the of_device_id from the > compatible string, and then finally extract the settings from the struct > again. > > See IE how this is done in drivers/ata/ahci_platform.c, I've tried > to come up with a simpler way and failed, for ahci_platform.c the > struct with per compatible-string data is quite big so it makes some > sense to use this construction. Here however not so much, this adds a > whole lot of unnecessary extra code + indirection. I esp. object against > the indirection as that unnecessarily makes it harder to follow whats > going on." alright.. missed that earlier. Sorry. -Kishon