* [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas, Arnd Bergmann, Olof Johansson,
linux-arm-kernel
Hello,
On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
could be supported as well like the max77620.
This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
that no regressions were introduced.
On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
[0]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg110348.html
[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/672568/
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #2.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #3.
- Fix typo error in changelog. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Rename rtc_reg to max77686_rtc_reg_offset. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment what's mapped by max77686_map. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use max77686_map array indexes in init. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_UPDATE1 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
- Add a MAX77802 prefix to ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Rename .rtcae to .alarm_enable_reg and .rtcrm to .separate_i2c_addr.
Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't use func and LINE in error messages. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_AE2 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
- Check if REG_RTC_AE1 has a valid address before accessing it.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #8.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #9.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
Javier Martinez Canillas (10):
rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers
rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support
rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver
ARM: exynos_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig | 1 -
arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 10 -
drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1 -
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 332 +++++++++++++++++++-----
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c | 502 ------------------------------------
6 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 581 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas, Arnd Bergmann, Olof Johansson,
linux-arm-kernel
Hello,
On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
could be supported as well like the max77620.
This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
that no regressions were introduced.
On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
[0]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg110348.html
[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/672568/
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #2.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #3.
- Fix typo error in changelog. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Rename rtc_reg to max77686_rtc_reg_offset. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment what's mapped by max77686_map. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use max77686_map array indexes in init. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_UPDATE1 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
- Add a MAX77802 prefix to ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Rename .rtcae to .alarm_enable_reg and .rtcrm to .separate_i2c_addr.
Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't use func and LINE in error messages. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_AE2 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
- Check if REG_RTC_AE1 has a valid address before accessing it.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #8.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #9.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
Javier Martinez Canillas (10):
rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers
rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support
rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver
ARM: exynos_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig | 1 -
arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 10 -
drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1 -
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 332 +++++++++++++++++++-----
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c | 502 ------------------------------------
6 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 581 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hello,
On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
could be supported as well like the max77620.
This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
that no regressions were introduced.
On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
[0]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg110348.html
[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/672568/
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #2.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #3.
- Fix typo error in changelog. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Rename rtc_reg to max77686_rtc_reg_offset. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment what's mapped by max77686_map. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use max77686_map array indexes in init. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_UPDATE1 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
- Add a MAX77802 prefix to ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Rename .rtcae to .alarm_enable_reg and .rtcrm to .separate_i2c_addr.
Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't use func and LINE in error messages. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_AE2 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
- Check if REG_RTC_AE1 has a valid address before accessing it.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #8.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #9.
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
Javier Martinez Canillas (10):
rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers
rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support
rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver
ARM: exynos_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig | 1 -
arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 10 -
drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1 -
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 332 +++++++++++++++++++-----
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c | 502 ------------------------------------
6 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 581 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 01/10] rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The function is always returning zero even in case of failures since
the ret value was not propagated to the callers. Fix the error path.
Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2: None
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 7184a0eda793..6653c3d11b66 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
out:
mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 01/10] rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The function is always returning zero even in case of failures since
the ret value was not propagated to the callers. Fix the error path.
Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2: None
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 7184a0eda793..6653c3d11b66 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
out:
mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return 0;
+ return ret;
}
static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #2.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 6653c3d11b66..98fabdb308b9 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -406,7 +406,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_init_reg(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
info->rtc_24hr_mode = 1;
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap, MAX77686_RTC_CONTROLM, data, 2);
+ ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ MAX77686_RTC_CONTROLM, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write controlm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #2.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 6653c3d11b66..98fabdb308b9 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -406,7 +406,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_init_reg(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
info->rtc_24hr_mode = 1;
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap, MAX77686_RTC_CONTROLM, data, 2);
+ ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ MAX77686_RTC_CONTROLM, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write controlm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt suggest to use usleep_range()
instead of msleep() for small msec (1ms - 20ms) since msleep() will
often sleep for 20ms for any value in that range.
This is fine in this case since 16ms is the _minimum_ delay required
by max77686 for an RTC update but by using usleep_range() instead of
msleep(), the driver can support other RTC IP blocks with a shorter
minimum delay (i.e: in the range of usecs instead of msecs).
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #3.
- Fix typo error in changelog. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 98fabdb308b9..71ef2240b3fc 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
#define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
#define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
-#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16
+#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16000
enum {
RTC_SEC = 0,
@@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
__func__, ret, data);
else {
/* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
- msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
+ usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
+ MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
}
return ret;
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt suggest to use usleep_range()
instead of msleep() for small msec (1ms - 20ms) since msleep() will
often sleep for 20ms for any value in that range.
This is fine in this case since 16ms is the _minimum_ delay required
by max77686 for an RTC update but by using usleep_range() instead of
msleep(), the driver can support other RTC IP blocks with a shorter
minimum delay (i.e: in the range of usecs instead of msecs).
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #3.
- Fix typo error in changelog. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 98fabdb308b9..71ef2240b3fc 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
#define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
#define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
-#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16
+#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16000
enum {
RTC_SEC = 0,
@@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
__func__, ret, data);
else {
/* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
- msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
+ usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
+ MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
}
return ret;
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
using the platform device ID table for each device.
This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 71ef2240b3fc..16033a2c2756 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -41,8 +41,6 @@
#define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
#define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
-#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16000
-
enum {
RTC_SEC = 0,
RTC_MIN,
@@ -54,6 +52,13 @@ enum {
RTC_NR_TIME
};
+struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
+ /* Minimum delay needed for a RTC update */
+ unsigned long delay;
+ /* Mask used to read RTC registers value */
+ u8 mask;
+};
+
struct max77686_rtc_info {
struct device *dev;
struct max77686_dev *max77686;
@@ -63,6 +68,8 @@ struct max77686_rtc_info {
struct regmap *regmap;
+ const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *drv_data;
+
int virq;
int rtc_24hr_mode;
};
@@ -72,12 +79,19 @@ enum MAX77686_RTC_OP {
MAX77686_RTC_READ,
};
+static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
+ .delay = 1600,
+ .mask = 0x7f,
+};
+
static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
- int rtc_24hr_mode)
+ struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
{
- tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & 0x7f;
- tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & 0x7f;
- if (rtc_24hr_mode)
+ int mask = info->drv_data->mask;
+
+ tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & mask;
+ tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & mask;
+ if (info->rtc_24hr_mode)
tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & 0x1f;
else {
tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & 0x0f;
@@ -86,10 +100,10 @@ static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
}
/* Only a single bit is set in data[], so fls() would be equivalent */
- tm->tm_wday = ffs(data[RTC_WEEKDAY] & 0x7f) - 1;
+ tm->tm_wday = ffs(data[RTC_WEEKDAY] & mask) - 1;
tm->tm_mday = data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f;
tm->tm_mon = (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0x0f) - 1;
- tm->tm_year = (data[RTC_YEAR] & 0x7f) + 100;
+ tm->tm_year = (data[RTC_YEAR] & mask) + 100;
tm->tm_yday = 0;
tm->tm_isdst = 0;
}
@@ -117,6 +131,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
{
int ret;
unsigned int data;
+ unsigned long delay = info->drv_data->delay;
if (op == MAX77686_RTC_WRITE)
data = 1 << RTC_UDR_SHIFT;
@@ -129,9 +144,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write update reg(ret=%d, data=0x%x)\n",
__func__, ret, data);
else {
- /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
- usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
- MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
+ /* Minimum delay required before RTC update. */
+ usleep_range(delay, delay * 2);
}
return ret;
@@ -156,7 +170,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
goto out;
}
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, tm, info);
ret = rtc_valid_tm(tm);
@@ -213,7 +227,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
goto out;
}
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info);
alrm->enabled = 0;
for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++) {
@@ -260,7 +274,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
goto out;
}
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++)
data[i] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
@@ -299,7 +313,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
goto out;
}
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
data[RTC_SEC] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
data[RTC_MIN] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
@@ -307,7 +321,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
data[RTC_WEEKDAY] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
if (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0xf)
data[RTC_MONTH] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- if (data[RTC_YEAR] & 0x7f)
+ if (data[RTC_YEAR] & info->drv_data->mask)
data[RTC_YEAR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
if (data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f)
data[RTC_DATE] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
@@ -423,6 +437,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct max77686_dev *max77686 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
struct max77686_rtc_info *info;
+ const struct platform_device_id *id = platform_get_device_id(pdev);
int ret;
dev_info(&pdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
@@ -436,6 +451,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
info->dev = &pdev->dev;
info->max77686 = max77686;
info->rtc = max77686->rtc;
+ info->drv_data = (const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *)
+ id->driver_data;
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info);
@@ -510,7 +527,7 @@ static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max77686_rtc_pm_ops,
max77686_rtc_suspend, max77686_rtc_resume);
static const struct platform_device_id rtc_id[] = {
- { "max77686-rtc", 0 },
+ { "max77686-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77686_drv_data, },
{},
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, rtc_id);
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
using the platform device ID table for each device.
This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 71ef2240b3fc..16033a2c2756 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -41,8 +41,6 @@
#define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
#define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
-#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16000
-
enum {
RTC_SEC = 0,
RTC_MIN,
@@ -54,6 +52,13 @@ enum {
RTC_NR_TIME
};
+struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
+ /* Minimum delay needed for a RTC update */
+ unsigned long delay;
+ /* Mask used to read RTC registers value */
+ u8 mask;
+};
+
struct max77686_rtc_info {
struct device *dev;
struct max77686_dev *max77686;
@@ -63,6 +68,8 @@ struct max77686_rtc_info {
struct regmap *regmap;
+ const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *drv_data;
+
int virq;
int rtc_24hr_mode;
};
@@ -72,12 +79,19 @@ enum MAX77686_RTC_OP {
MAX77686_RTC_READ,
};
+static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
+ .delay = 1600,
+ .mask = 0x7f,
+};
+
static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
- int rtc_24hr_mode)
+ struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
{
- tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & 0x7f;
- tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & 0x7f;
- if (rtc_24hr_mode)
+ int mask = info->drv_data->mask;
+
+ tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & mask;
+ tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & mask;
+ if (info->rtc_24hr_mode)
tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & 0x1f;
else {
tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & 0x0f;
@@ -86,10 +100,10 @@ static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
}
/* Only a single bit is set in data[], so fls() would be equivalent */
- tm->tm_wday = ffs(data[RTC_WEEKDAY] & 0x7f) - 1;
+ tm->tm_wday = ffs(data[RTC_WEEKDAY] & mask) - 1;
tm->tm_mday = data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f;
tm->tm_mon = (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0x0f) - 1;
- tm->tm_year = (data[RTC_YEAR] & 0x7f) + 100;
+ tm->tm_year = (data[RTC_YEAR] & mask) + 100;
tm->tm_yday = 0;
tm->tm_isdst = 0;
}
@@ -117,6 +131,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
{
int ret;
unsigned int data;
+ unsigned long delay = info->drv_data->delay;
if (op == MAX77686_RTC_WRITE)
data = 1 << RTC_UDR_SHIFT;
@@ -129,9 +144,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write update reg(ret=%d, data=0x%x)\n",
__func__, ret, data);
else {
- /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
- usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
- MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
+ /* Minimum delay required before RTC update. */
+ usleep_range(delay, delay * 2);
}
return ret;
@@ -156,7 +170,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
goto out;
}
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, tm, info);
ret = rtc_valid_tm(tm);
@@ -213,7 +227,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
goto out;
}
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info);
alrm->enabled = 0;
for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++) {
@@ -260,7 +274,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
goto out;
}
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++)
data[i] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
@@ -299,7 +313,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
goto out;
}
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
data[RTC_SEC] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
data[RTC_MIN] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
@@ -307,7 +321,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
data[RTC_WEEKDAY] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
if (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0xf)
data[RTC_MONTH] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- if (data[RTC_YEAR] & 0x7f)
+ if (data[RTC_YEAR] & info->drv_data->mask)
data[RTC_YEAR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
if (data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f)
data[RTC_DATE] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
@@ -423,6 +437,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct max77686_dev *max77686 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
struct max77686_rtc_info *info;
+ const struct platform_device_id *id = platform_get_device_id(pdev);
int ret;
dev_info(&pdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
@@ -436,6 +451,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
info->dev = &pdev->dev;
info->max77686 = max77686;
info->rtc = max77686->rtc;
+ info->drv_data = (const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *)
+ id->driver_data;
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info);
@@ -510,7 +527,7 @@ static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max77686_rtc_pm_ops,
max77686_rtc_suspend, max77686_rtc_resume);
static const struct platform_device_id rtc_id[] = {
- { "max77686-rtc", 0 },
+ { "max77686-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77686_drv_data, },
{},
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, rtc_id);
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 05/10] rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The max77686 driver is generic enough that can be used for other
Maxim RTC IP blocks but these might not have the same registers
layout so instead of accessing the registers directly, add a map
to translate offsets to the real registers addresses for each IP.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Rename rtc_reg to max77686_rtc_reg_offset. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment what's mapped by max77686_map. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use max77686_map array indexes in init. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_UPDATE1 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 16033a2c2756..74bf54be36a4 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
unsigned long delay;
/* Mask used to read RTC registers value */
u8 mask;
+ /* Registers offset to I2C addresses map */
+ const unsigned int *map;
};
struct max77686_rtc_info {
@@ -79,9 +81,69 @@ enum MAX77686_RTC_OP {
MAX77686_RTC_READ,
};
+/* These are not registers but just offsets that are mapped to addresses */
+enum max77686_rtc_reg_offset {
+ REG_RTC_CONTROLM = 0,
+ REG_RTC_CONTROL,
+ REG_RTC_UPDATE0,
+ REG_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL,
+ REG_RTC_SEC,
+ REG_RTC_MIN,
+ REG_RTC_HOUR,
+ REG_RTC_WEEKDAY,
+ REG_RTC_MONTH,
+ REG_RTC_YEAR,
+ REG_RTC_DATE,
+ REG_ALARM1_SEC,
+ REG_ALARM1_MIN,
+ REG_ALARM1_HOUR,
+ REG_ALARM1_WEEKDAY,
+ REG_ALARM1_MONTH,
+ REG_ALARM1_YEAR,
+ REG_ALARM1_DATE,
+ REG_ALARM2_SEC,
+ REG_ALARM2_MIN,
+ REG_ALARM2_HOUR,
+ REG_ALARM2_WEEKDAY,
+ REG_ALARM2_MONTH,
+ REG_ALARM2_YEAR,
+ REG_ALARM2_DATE,
+ REG_RTC_END,
+};
+
+/* Maps RTC registers offset to the MAX77686 register addresses */
+static const unsigned int max77686_map[REG_RTC_END] = {
+ [REG_RTC_CONTROLM] = MAX77686_RTC_CONTROLM,
+ [REG_RTC_CONTROL] = MAX77686_RTC_CONTROL,
+ [REG_RTC_UPDATE0] = MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE0,
+ [REG_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL] = MAX77686_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL,
+ [REG_RTC_SEC] = MAX77686_RTC_SEC,
+ [REG_RTC_MIN] = MAX77686_RTC_MIN,
+ [REG_RTC_HOUR] = MAX77686_RTC_HOUR,
+ [REG_RTC_WEEKDAY] = MAX77686_RTC_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_RTC_MONTH] = MAX77686_RTC_MONTH,
+ [REG_RTC_YEAR] = MAX77686_RTC_YEAR,
+ [REG_RTC_DATE] = MAX77686_RTC_DATE,
+ [REG_ALARM1_SEC] = MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC,
+ [REG_ALARM1_MIN] = MAX77686_ALARM1_MIN,
+ [REG_ALARM1_HOUR] = MAX77686_ALARM1_HOUR,
+ [REG_ALARM1_WEEKDAY] = MAX77686_ALARM1_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_ALARM1_MONTH] = MAX77686_ALARM1_MONTH,
+ [REG_ALARM1_YEAR] = MAX77686_ALARM1_YEAR,
+ [REG_ALARM1_DATE] = MAX77686_ALARM1_DATE,
+ [REG_ALARM2_SEC] = MAX77686_ALARM2_SEC,
+ [REG_ALARM2_MIN] = MAX77686_ALARM2_MIN,
+ [REG_ALARM2_HOUR] = MAX77686_ALARM2_HOUR,
+ [REG_ALARM2_WEEKDAY] = MAX77686_ALARM2_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_ALARM2_MONTH] = MAX77686_ALARM2_MONTH,
+ [REG_ALARM2_YEAR] = MAX77686_ALARM2_YEAR,
+ [REG_ALARM2_DATE] = MAX77686_ALARM2_DATE,
+};
+
static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
.delay = 1600,
.mask = 0x7f,
+ .map = max77686_map,
};
static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
@@ -139,7 +201,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
data = 1 << RTC_RBUDR_SHIFT;
ret = regmap_update_bits(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE0, data, data);
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_RTC_UPDATE0],
+ data, data);
if (ret < 0)
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write update reg(ret=%d, data=0x%x)\n",
__func__, ret, data);
@@ -164,7 +227,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_RTC_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_RTC_SEC],
+ data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read time reg(%d)\n", __func__, ret);
goto out;
@@ -192,7 +256,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
mutex_lock(&info->lock);
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_RTC_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_RTC_SEC],
+ data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write time reg(%d)\n", __func__,
ret);
@@ -211,6 +276,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
struct max77686_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
unsigned int val;
+ const unsigned int *map = info->drv_data->map;
int i, ret;
mutex_lock(&info->lock);
@@ -220,7 +286,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s:%d fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, __LINE__, ret);
@@ -258,6 +324,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
int ret, i;
struct rtc_time tm;
+ const unsigned int *map = info->drv_data->map;
if (!mutex_is_locked(&info->lock))
dev_warn(info->dev, "%s: should have mutex locked\n", __func__);
@@ -267,7 +334,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -280,7 +347,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
data[i] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -297,6 +364,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
int ret;
struct rtc_time tm;
+ const unsigned int *map = info->drv_data->map;
if (!mutex_is_locked(&info->lock))
dev_warn(info->dev, "%s: should have mutex locked\n", __func__);
@@ -306,7 +374,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -327,7 +395,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
data[RTC_DATE] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -356,7 +424,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_ALARM1_SEC],
+ data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
@@ -422,7 +491,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_init_reg(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
info->rtc_24hr_mode = 1;
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_RTC_CONTROLM, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_RTC_CONTROLM],
+ data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write controlm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 05/10] rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The max77686 driver is generic enough that can be used for other
Maxim RTC IP blocks but these might not have the same registers
layout so instead of accessing the registers directly, add a map
to translate offsets to the real registers addresses for each IP.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Rename rtc_reg to max77686_rtc_reg_offset. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Comment what's mapped by max77686_map. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Use max77686_map array indexes in init. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_UPDATE1 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 16033a2c2756..74bf54be36a4 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
unsigned long delay;
/* Mask used to read RTC registers value */
u8 mask;
+ /* Registers offset to I2C addresses map */
+ const unsigned int *map;
};
struct max77686_rtc_info {
@@ -79,9 +81,69 @@ enum MAX77686_RTC_OP {
MAX77686_RTC_READ,
};
+/* These are not registers but just offsets that are mapped to addresses */
+enum max77686_rtc_reg_offset {
+ REG_RTC_CONTROLM = 0,
+ REG_RTC_CONTROL,
+ REG_RTC_UPDATE0,
+ REG_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL,
+ REG_RTC_SEC,
+ REG_RTC_MIN,
+ REG_RTC_HOUR,
+ REG_RTC_WEEKDAY,
+ REG_RTC_MONTH,
+ REG_RTC_YEAR,
+ REG_RTC_DATE,
+ REG_ALARM1_SEC,
+ REG_ALARM1_MIN,
+ REG_ALARM1_HOUR,
+ REG_ALARM1_WEEKDAY,
+ REG_ALARM1_MONTH,
+ REG_ALARM1_YEAR,
+ REG_ALARM1_DATE,
+ REG_ALARM2_SEC,
+ REG_ALARM2_MIN,
+ REG_ALARM2_HOUR,
+ REG_ALARM2_WEEKDAY,
+ REG_ALARM2_MONTH,
+ REG_ALARM2_YEAR,
+ REG_ALARM2_DATE,
+ REG_RTC_END,
+};
+
+/* Maps RTC registers offset to the MAX77686 register addresses */
+static const unsigned int max77686_map[REG_RTC_END] = {
+ [REG_RTC_CONTROLM] = MAX77686_RTC_CONTROLM,
+ [REG_RTC_CONTROL] = MAX77686_RTC_CONTROL,
+ [REG_RTC_UPDATE0] = MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE0,
+ [REG_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL] = MAX77686_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL,
+ [REG_RTC_SEC] = MAX77686_RTC_SEC,
+ [REG_RTC_MIN] = MAX77686_RTC_MIN,
+ [REG_RTC_HOUR] = MAX77686_RTC_HOUR,
+ [REG_RTC_WEEKDAY] = MAX77686_RTC_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_RTC_MONTH] = MAX77686_RTC_MONTH,
+ [REG_RTC_YEAR] = MAX77686_RTC_YEAR,
+ [REG_RTC_DATE] = MAX77686_RTC_DATE,
+ [REG_ALARM1_SEC] = MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC,
+ [REG_ALARM1_MIN] = MAX77686_ALARM1_MIN,
+ [REG_ALARM1_HOUR] = MAX77686_ALARM1_HOUR,
+ [REG_ALARM1_WEEKDAY] = MAX77686_ALARM1_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_ALARM1_MONTH] = MAX77686_ALARM1_MONTH,
+ [REG_ALARM1_YEAR] = MAX77686_ALARM1_YEAR,
+ [REG_ALARM1_DATE] = MAX77686_ALARM1_DATE,
+ [REG_ALARM2_SEC] = MAX77686_ALARM2_SEC,
+ [REG_ALARM2_MIN] = MAX77686_ALARM2_MIN,
+ [REG_ALARM2_HOUR] = MAX77686_ALARM2_HOUR,
+ [REG_ALARM2_WEEKDAY] = MAX77686_ALARM2_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_ALARM2_MONTH] = MAX77686_ALARM2_MONTH,
+ [REG_ALARM2_YEAR] = MAX77686_ALARM2_YEAR,
+ [REG_ALARM2_DATE] = MAX77686_ALARM2_DATE,
+};
+
static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
.delay = 1600,
.mask = 0x7f,
+ .map = max77686_map,
};
static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
@@ -139,7 +201,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
data = 1 << RTC_RBUDR_SHIFT;
ret = regmap_update_bits(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE0, data, data);
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_RTC_UPDATE0],
+ data, data);
if (ret < 0)
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write update reg(ret=%d, data=0x%x)\n",
__func__, ret, data);
@@ -164,7 +227,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_RTC_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_RTC_SEC],
+ data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read time reg(%d)\n", __func__, ret);
goto out;
@@ -192,7 +256,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
mutex_lock(&info->lock);
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_RTC_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_RTC_SEC],
+ data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write time reg(%d)\n", __func__,
ret);
@@ -211,6 +276,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
struct max77686_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
unsigned int val;
+ const unsigned int *map = info->drv_data->map;
int i, ret;
mutex_lock(&info->lock);
@@ -220,7 +286,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s:%d fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, __LINE__, ret);
@@ -258,6 +324,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
int ret, i;
struct rtc_time tm;
+ const unsigned int *map = info->drv_data->map;
if (!mutex_is_locked(&info->lock))
dev_warn(info->dev, "%s: should have mutex locked\n", __func__);
@@ -267,7 +334,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -280,7 +347,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
data[i] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -297,6 +364,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
int ret;
struct rtc_time tm;
+ const unsigned int *map = info->drv_data->map;
if (!mutex_is_locked(&info->lock))
dev_warn(info->dev, "%s: should have mutex locked\n", __func__);
@@ -306,7 +374,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -327,7 +395,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
data[RTC_DATE] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -356,7 +424,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
goto out;
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_ALARM1_SEC],
+ data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
@@ -422,7 +491,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_init_reg(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
info->rtc_24hr_mode = 1;
ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- MAX77686_RTC_CONTROLM, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
+ info->drv_data->map[REG_RTC_CONTROLM],
+ data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write controlm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks are very similar with only
these differences:
0) The RTC registers layout and addresses are different.
1) The MAX77686 use 1 bit of the sec/min/hour/etc registers as the
alarm enable while MAX77802 has a separate register for that.
2) The MAX77686 RTCYEAR register valid values range is 0..99 while
for MAX77802 is 0..199.
3) The MAX77686 has a separate I2C address for the RTC registers
while the MAX77802 uses the same I2C address as the PMIC regs.
5) The minimum delay before a RTC update (16 msecs vs 200 usecs).
There are separate drivers for MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks
but the differences are not that big so the driver can be extended
to support both instead of duplicating a lot of code in 2 drivers.
Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add a MAX77802 prefix to ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Rename .rtcae to .alarm_enable_reg and .rtcrm to .separate_i2c_addr.
Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't use func and LINE in error messages. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_AE2 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
- Check if REG_RTC_AE1 has a valid address before accessing it.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 204 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 158 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 74bf54be36a4..3e6d6bff5154 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/*
- * RTC driver for Maxim MAX77686
+ * RTC driver for Maxim MAX77686 and MAX77802
*
* Copyright (C) 2012 Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd
*
@@ -41,6 +41,15 @@
#define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
#define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
+#define REG_RTC_NONE 0xdeadbeef
+
+/*
+ * MAX77802 has separate register (RTCAE1) for alarm enable instead
+ * using 1 bit from registers RTC{SEC,MIN,HOUR,DAY,MONTH,YEAR,DATE}
+ * as in done in MAX77686.
+ */
+#define MAX77802_ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE 0x77
+
enum {
RTC_SEC = 0,
RTC_MIN,
@@ -59,6 +68,10 @@ struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
u8 mask;
/* Registers offset to I2C addresses map */
const unsigned int *map;
+ /* Has a separate alarm enable register? */
+ bool alarm_enable_reg;
+ /* Has a separate I2C regmap for the RTC? */
+ bool separate_i2c_addr;
};
struct max77686_rtc_info {
@@ -108,6 +121,7 @@ enum max77686_rtc_reg_offset {
REG_ALARM2_MONTH,
REG_ALARM2_YEAR,
REG_ALARM2_DATE,
+ REG_RTC_AE1,
REG_RTC_END,
};
@@ -138,12 +152,52 @@ static const unsigned int max77686_map[REG_RTC_END] = {
[REG_ALARM2_MONTH] = MAX77686_ALARM2_MONTH,
[REG_ALARM2_YEAR] = MAX77686_ALARM2_YEAR,
[REG_ALARM2_DATE] = MAX77686_ALARM2_DATE,
+ [REG_RTC_AE1] = REG_RTC_NONE,
};
static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
.delay = 1600,
.mask = 0x7f,
.map = max77686_map,
+ .alarm_enable_reg = false,
+ .separate_i2c_addr = true,
+};
+
+static const unsigned int max77802_map[REG_RTC_END] = {
+ [REG_RTC_CONTROLM] = MAX77802_RTC_CONTROLM,
+ [REG_RTC_CONTROL] = MAX77802_RTC_CONTROL,
+ [REG_RTC_UPDATE0] = MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE0,
+ [REG_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL] = MAX77802_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL,
+ [REG_RTC_SEC] = MAX77802_RTC_SEC,
+ [REG_RTC_MIN] = MAX77802_RTC_MIN,
+ [REG_RTC_HOUR] = MAX77802_RTC_HOUR,
+ [REG_RTC_WEEKDAY] = MAX77802_RTC_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_RTC_MONTH] = MAX77802_RTC_MONTH,
+ [REG_RTC_YEAR] = MAX77802_RTC_YEAR,
+ [REG_RTC_DATE] = MAX77802_RTC_DATE,
+ [REG_ALARM1_SEC] = MAX77802_ALARM1_SEC,
+ [REG_ALARM1_MIN] = MAX77802_ALARM1_MIN,
+ [REG_ALARM1_HOUR] = MAX77802_ALARM1_HOUR,
+ [REG_ALARM1_WEEKDAY] = MAX77802_ALARM1_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_ALARM1_MONTH] = MAX77802_ALARM1_MONTH,
+ [REG_ALARM1_YEAR] = MAX77802_ALARM1_YEAR,
+ [REG_ALARM1_DATE] = MAX77802_ALARM1_DATE,
+ [REG_ALARM2_SEC] = MAX77802_ALARM2_SEC,
+ [REG_ALARM2_MIN] = MAX77802_ALARM2_MIN,
+ [REG_ALARM2_HOUR] = MAX77802_ALARM2_HOUR,
+ [REG_ALARM2_WEEKDAY] = MAX77802_ALARM2_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_ALARM2_MONTH] = MAX77802_ALARM2_MONTH,
+ [REG_ALARM2_YEAR] = MAX77802_ALARM2_YEAR,
+ [REG_ALARM2_DATE] = MAX77802_ALARM2_DATE,
+ [REG_RTC_AE1] = MAX77802_RTC_AE1,
+};
+
+static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77802_drv_data = {
+ .delay = 200,
+ .mask = 0xff,
+ .map = max77802_map,
+ .alarm_enable_reg = true,
+ .separate_i2c_addr = false,
};
static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
@@ -165,12 +219,20 @@ static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
tm->tm_wday = ffs(data[RTC_WEEKDAY] & mask) - 1;
tm->tm_mday = data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f;
tm->tm_mon = (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0x0f) - 1;
- tm->tm_year = (data[RTC_YEAR] & mask) + 100;
+ tm->tm_year = data[RTC_YEAR] & mask;
tm->tm_yday = 0;
tm->tm_isdst = 0;
+
+ /*
+ * MAX77686 uses 1 bit from sec/min/hour/etc RTC registers and the
+ * year values are just 0..99 so add 100 to support up to 2099.
+ */
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg)
+ tm->tm_year += 100;
}
-static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data)
+static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data,
+ struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
{
data[RTC_SEC] = tm->tm_sec;
data[RTC_MIN] = tm->tm_min;
@@ -178,13 +240,19 @@ static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data)
data[RTC_WEEKDAY] = 1 << tm->tm_wday;
data[RTC_DATE] = tm->tm_mday;
data[RTC_MONTH] = tm->tm_mon + 1;
- data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0;
- if (tm->tm_year < 100) {
- pr_warn("RTC cannot handle the year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n",
- 1900 + tm->tm_year);
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
+ data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0;
+
+ if (tm->tm_year < 100) {
+ pr_warn("RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n",
+ 1900 + tm->tm_year);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ } else {
+ data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year;
}
+
return 0;
}
@@ -249,7 +317,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
int ret;
- ret = max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(tm, data);
+ ret = max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(tm, data, info);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
@@ -296,11 +364,32 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info);
alrm->enabled = 0;
- for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++) {
- if (data[i] & ALARM_ENABLE_MASK) {
- alrm->enabled = 1;
- break;
+
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
+ for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++) {
+ if (data[i] & ALARM_ENABLE_MASK) {
+ alrm->enabled = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ } else {
+ if (map[REG_RTC_AE1] == REG_RTC_NONE) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ dev_err(info->dev,
+ "alarm enable register not set(%d)\n", ret);
+ goto out;
}
+
+ ret = regmap_read(info->max77686->regmap,
+ map[REG_RTC_AE1], &val);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(info->dev,
+ "fail to read alarm enable(%d)\n", ret);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ if (val)
+ alrm->enabled = 1;
}
alrm->pending = 0;
@@ -333,21 +422,34 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
+ ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
+ goto out;
+ }
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
- for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++)
- data[i] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
+ for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++)
+ data[i] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
+
+ ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ } else {
+ if (map[REG_RTC_AE1] == REG_RTC_NONE) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ dev_err(info->dev,
+ "alarm enable register not set(%d)\n", ret);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ ret = regmap_write(info->max77686->regmap,
+ map[REG_RTC_AE1], 0);
+ }
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -373,29 +475,35 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
+ ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
+ goto out;
+ }
- data[RTC_SEC] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- data[RTC_MIN] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- data[RTC_HOUR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- data[RTC_WEEKDAY] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
- if (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0xf)
- data[RTC_MONTH] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- if (data[RTC_YEAR] & info->drv_data->mask)
- data[RTC_YEAR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- if (data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f)
- data[RTC_DATE] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
+
+ data[RTC_SEC] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ data[RTC_MIN] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ data[RTC_HOUR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ data[RTC_WEEKDAY] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
+ if (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0xf)
+ data[RTC_MONTH] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ if (data[RTC_YEAR] & info->drv_data->mask)
+ data[RTC_YEAR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ if (data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f)
+ data[RTC_DATE] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+
+ ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ } else {
+ ret = regmap_write(info->max77686->regmap, map[REG_RTC_AE1],
+ MAX77802_ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE);
+ }
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -413,7 +521,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
int ret;
- ret = max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data);
+ ret = max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data, info);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
@@ -524,6 +632,9 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
info->drv_data = (const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *)
id->driver_data;
+ if (!info->drv_data->separate_i2c_addr)
+ info->max77686->rtc_regmap = info->max77686->regmap;
+
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info);
ret = max77686_rtc_init_reg(info);
@@ -535,7 +646,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
- info->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, "max77686-rtc",
+ info->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, id->name,
&max77686_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
if (IS_ERR(info->rtc_dev)) {
@@ -598,6 +709,7 @@ static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max77686_rtc_pm_ops,
static const struct platform_device_id rtc_id[] = {
{ "max77686-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77686_drv_data, },
+ { "max77802-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77802_drv_data, },
{},
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, rtc_id);
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks are very similar with only
these differences:
0) The RTC registers layout and addresses are different.
1) The MAX77686 use 1 bit of the sec/min/hour/etc registers as the
alarm enable while MAX77802 has a separate register for that.
2) The MAX77686 RTCYEAR register valid values range is 0..99 while
for MAX77802 is 0..199.
3) The MAX77686 has a separate I2C address for the RTC registers
while the MAX77802 uses the same I2C address as the PMIC regs.
5) The minimum delay before a RTC update (16 msecs vs 200 usecs).
There are separate drivers for MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks
but the differences are not that big so the driver can be extended
to support both instead of duplicating a lot of code in 2 drivers.
Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add a MAX77802 prefix to ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Rename .rtcae to .alarm_enable_reg and .rtcrm to .separate_i2c_addr.
Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Don't use func and LINE in error messages. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
- Remove REG_RTC_AE2 since is not used by neither max77686 nor max77802.
- Check if REG_RTC_AE1 has a valid address before accessing it.
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 204 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 158 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 74bf54be36a4..3e6d6bff5154 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/*
- * RTC driver for Maxim MAX77686
+ * RTC driver for Maxim MAX77686 and MAX77802
*
* Copyright (C) 2012 Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd
*
@@ -41,6 +41,15 @@
#define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
#define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
+#define REG_RTC_NONE 0xdeadbeef
+
+/*
+ * MAX77802 has separate register (RTCAE1) for alarm enable instead
+ * using 1 bit from registers RTC{SEC,MIN,HOUR,DAY,MONTH,YEAR,DATE}
+ * as in done in MAX77686.
+ */
+#define MAX77802_ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE 0x77
+
enum {
RTC_SEC = 0,
RTC_MIN,
@@ -59,6 +68,10 @@ struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
u8 mask;
/* Registers offset to I2C addresses map */
const unsigned int *map;
+ /* Has a separate alarm enable register? */
+ bool alarm_enable_reg;
+ /* Has a separate I2C regmap for the RTC? */
+ bool separate_i2c_addr;
};
struct max77686_rtc_info {
@@ -108,6 +121,7 @@ enum max77686_rtc_reg_offset {
REG_ALARM2_MONTH,
REG_ALARM2_YEAR,
REG_ALARM2_DATE,
+ REG_RTC_AE1,
REG_RTC_END,
};
@@ -138,12 +152,52 @@ static const unsigned int max77686_map[REG_RTC_END] = {
[REG_ALARM2_MONTH] = MAX77686_ALARM2_MONTH,
[REG_ALARM2_YEAR] = MAX77686_ALARM2_YEAR,
[REG_ALARM2_DATE] = MAX77686_ALARM2_DATE,
+ [REG_RTC_AE1] = REG_RTC_NONE,
};
static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
.delay = 1600,
.mask = 0x7f,
.map = max77686_map,
+ .alarm_enable_reg = false,
+ .separate_i2c_addr = true,
+};
+
+static const unsigned int max77802_map[REG_RTC_END] = {
+ [REG_RTC_CONTROLM] = MAX77802_RTC_CONTROLM,
+ [REG_RTC_CONTROL] = MAX77802_RTC_CONTROL,
+ [REG_RTC_UPDATE0] = MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE0,
+ [REG_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL] = MAX77802_WTSR_SMPL_CNTL,
+ [REG_RTC_SEC] = MAX77802_RTC_SEC,
+ [REG_RTC_MIN] = MAX77802_RTC_MIN,
+ [REG_RTC_HOUR] = MAX77802_RTC_HOUR,
+ [REG_RTC_WEEKDAY] = MAX77802_RTC_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_RTC_MONTH] = MAX77802_RTC_MONTH,
+ [REG_RTC_YEAR] = MAX77802_RTC_YEAR,
+ [REG_RTC_DATE] = MAX77802_RTC_DATE,
+ [REG_ALARM1_SEC] = MAX77802_ALARM1_SEC,
+ [REG_ALARM1_MIN] = MAX77802_ALARM1_MIN,
+ [REG_ALARM1_HOUR] = MAX77802_ALARM1_HOUR,
+ [REG_ALARM1_WEEKDAY] = MAX77802_ALARM1_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_ALARM1_MONTH] = MAX77802_ALARM1_MONTH,
+ [REG_ALARM1_YEAR] = MAX77802_ALARM1_YEAR,
+ [REG_ALARM1_DATE] = MAX77802_ALARM1_DATE,
+ [REG_ALARM2_SEC] = MAX77802_ALARM2_SEC,
+ [REG_ALARM2_MIN] = MAX77802_ALARM2_MIN,
+ [REG_ALARM2_HOUR] = MAX77802_ALARM2_HOUR,
+ [REG_ALARM2_WEEKDAY] = MAX77802_ALARM2_WEEKDAY,
+ [REG_ALARM2_MONTH] = MAX77802_ALARM2_MONTH,
+ [REG_ALARM2_YEAR] = MAX77802_ALARM2_YEAR,
+ [REG_ALARM2_DATE] = MAX77802_ALARM2_DATE,
+ [REG_RTC_AE1] = MAX77802_RTC_AE1,
+};
+
+static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77802_drv_data = {
+ .delay = 200,
+ .mask = 0xff,
+ .map = max77802_map,
+ .alarm_enable_reg = true,
+ .separate_i2c_addr = false,
};
static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
@@ -165,12 +219,20 @@ static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
tm->tm_wday = ffs(data[RTC_WEEKDAY] & mask) - 1;
tm->tm_mday = data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f;
tm->tm_mon = (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0x0f) - 1;
- tm->tm_year = (data[RTC_YEAR] & mask) + 100;
+ tm->tm_year = data[RTC_YEAR] & mask;
tm->tm_yday = 0;
tm->tm_isdst = 0;
+
+ /*
+ * MAX77686 uses 1 bit from sec/min/hour/etc RTC registers and the
+ * year values are just 0..99 so add 100 to support up to 2099.
+ */
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg)
+ tm->tm_year += 100;
}
-static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data)
+static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data,
+ struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
{
data[RTC_SEC] = tm->tm_sec;
data[RTC_MIN] = tm->tm_min;
@@ -178,13 +240,19 @@ static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data)
data[RTC_WEEKDAY] = 1 << tm->tm_wday;
data[RTC_DATE] = tm->tm_mday;
data[RTC_MONTH] = tm->tm_mon + 1;
- data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0;
- if (tm->tm_year < 100) {
- pr_warn("RTC cannot handle the year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n",
- 1900 + tm->tm_year);
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
+ data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0;
+
+ if (tm->tm_year < 100) {
+ pr_warn("RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n",
+ 1900 + tm->tm_year);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ } else {
+ data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year;
}
+
return 0;
}
@@ -249,7 +317,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
int ret;
- ret = max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(tm, data);
+ ret = max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(tm, data, info);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
@@ -296,11 +364,32 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info);
alrm->enabled = 0;
- for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++) {
- if (data[i] & ALARM_ENABLE_MASK) {
- alrm->enabled = 1;
- break;
+
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
+ for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++) {
+ if (data[i] & ALARM_ENABLE_MASK) {
+ alrm->enabled = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ } else {
+ if (map[REG_RTC_AE1] == REG_RTC_NONE) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ dev_err(info->dev,
+ "alarm enable register not set(%d)\n", ret);
+ goto out;
}
+
+ ret = regmap_read(info->max77686->regmap,
+ map[REG_RTC_AE1], &val);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(info->dev,
+ "fail to read alarm enable(%d)\n", ret);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ if (val)
+ alrm->enabled = 1;
}
alrm->pending = 0;
@@ -333,21 +422,34 @@ static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
+ ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
+ goto out;
+ }
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
- for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++)
- data[i] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
+ for (i = 0; i < RTC_NR_TIME; i++)
+ data[i] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
+
+ ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ } else {
+ if (map[REG_RTC_AE1] == REG_RTC_NONE) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ dev_err(info->dev,
+ "alarm enable register not set(%d)\n", ret);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ ret = regmap_write(info->max77686->regmap,
+ map[REG_RTC_AE1], 0);
+ }
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -373,29 +475,35 @@ static int max77686_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
+ if (!info->drv_data->alarm_enable_reg) {
+ ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
+ goto out;
+ }
- data[RTC_SEC] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- data[RTC_MIN] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- data[RTC_HOUR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- data[RTC_WEEKDAY] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
- if (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0xf)
- data[RTC_MONTH] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- if (data[RTC_YEAR] & info->drv_data->mask)
- data[RTC_YEAR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
- if (data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f)
- data[RTC_DATE] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &tm, info);
+
+ data[RTC_SEC] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ data[RTC_MIN] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ data[RTC_HOUR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ data[RTC_WEEKDAY] &= ~ALARM_ENABLE_MASK;
+ if (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0xf)
+ data[RTC_MONTH] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ if (data[RTC_YEAR] & info->drv_data->mask)
+ data[RTC_YEAR] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+ if (data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f)
+ data[RTC_DATE] |= (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT);
+
+ ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
+ map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
+ } else {
+ ret = regmap_write(info->max77686->regmap, map[REG_RTC_AE1],
+ MAX77802_ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE);
+ }
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
- map[REG_ALARM1_SEC], data, RTC_NR_TIME);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
__func__, ret);
@@ -413,7 +521,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
int ret;
- ret = max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data);
+ ret = max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data, info);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
@@ -524,6 +632,9 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
info->drv_data = (const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *)
id->driver_data;
+ if (!info->drv_data->separate_i2c_addr)
+ info->max77686->rtc_regmap = info->max77686->regmap;
+
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info);
ret = max77686_rtc_init_reg(info);
@@ -535,7 +646,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
- info->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, "max77686-rtc",
+ info->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, id->name,
&max77686_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
if (IS_ERR(info->rtc_dev)) {
@@ -598,6 +709,7 @@ static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max77686_rtc_pm_ops,
static const struct platform_device_id rtc_id[] = {
{ "max77686-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77686_drv_data, },
+ { "max77802-rtc", .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&max77802_drv_data, },
{},
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, rtc_id);
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 07/10] rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
It is better to use dev_*() log functions instead of pr_*() to print
information about the device in the kernel log in a standardized way.
This also allows to remove the local pr_fmt() defined macro.
Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2: None
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 3e6d6bff5154..e1739d19ce9a 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -12,8 +12,6 @@
*
*/
-#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
-
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/rtc.h>
#include <linux/delay.h>
@@ -245,8 +243,9 @@ static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data,
data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0;
if (tm->tm_year < 100) {
- pr_warn("RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n",
- 1900 + tm->tm_year);
+ dev_warn(info->dev,
+ "RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000\n",
+ 1900 + tm->tm_year);
return -EINVAL;
}
} else {
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 07/10] rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
It is better to use dev_*() log functions instead of pr_*() to print
information about the device in the kernel log in a standardized way.
This also allows to remove the local pr_fmt() defined macro.
Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2: None
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
index 3e6d6bff5154..e1739d19ce9a 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
@@ -12,8 +12,6 @@
*
*/
-#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
-
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/rtc.h>
#include <linux/delay.h>
@@ -245,8 +243,9 @@ static int max77686_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data,
data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year > 100 ? (tm->tm_year - 100) : 0;
if (tm->tm_year < 100) {
- pr_warn("RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n",
- 1900 + tm->tm_year);
+ dev_warn(info->dev,
+ "RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000\n",
+ 1900 + tm->tm_year);
return -EINVAL;
}
} else {
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The max77686 RTC driver now supports the max77802 RTC as
well so there's no need to have a separate driver anymore.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #8.
drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 10 -
drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1 -
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c | 502 ---------------------------------------------
3 files changed, 513 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
index 376322f71fd5..ef456d3cf265 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
@@ -335,16 +335,6 @@ config RTC_DRV_RK808
This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
will be called rk808-rtc.
-config RTC_DRV_MAX77802
- tristate "Maxim 77802 RTC"
- depends on MFD_MAX77686
- help
- If you say yes here you will get support for the
- RTC of Maxim MAX77802 PMIC.
-
- This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
- will be called rtc-max77802.
-
config RTC_DRV_RS5C372
tristate "Ricoh R2025S/D, RS5C372A/B, RV5C386, RV5C387A"
help
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Makefile b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
index 62d61b26ca7e..ed4519efa3ca 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
@@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_M48T86) += rtc-m48t86.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX6900) += rtc-max6900.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX6902) += rtc-max6902.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686) += rtc-max77686.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802) += rtc-max77802.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907) += rtc-max8907.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8925) += rtc-max8925.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997) += rtc-max8997.o
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
deleted file mode 100644
index 82ffcc5a5345..000000000000
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,502 +0,0 @@
-/*
- * RTC driver for Maxim MAX77802
- *
- * Copyright (C) 2013 Google, Inc
- *
- * Copyright (C) 2012 Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd
- *
- * based on rtc-max8997.c
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
- * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
- * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
- * option) any later version.
- *
- */
-
-#include <linux/slab.h>
-#include <linux/rtc.h>
-#include <linux/delay.h>
-#include <linux/mutex.h>
-#include <linux/module.h>
-#include <linux/platform_device.h>
-#include <linux/mfd/max77686-private.h>
-#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
-#include <linux/regmap.h>
-
-/* RTC Control Register */
-#define BCD_EN_SHIFT 0
-#define BCD_EN_MASK (1 << BCD_EN_SHIFT)
-#define MODEL24_SHIFT 1
-#define MODEL24_MASK (1 << MODEL24_SHIFT)
-/* RTC Update Register1 */
-#define RTC_UDR_SHIFT 0
-#define RTC_UDR_MASK (1 << RTC_UDR_SHIFT)
-#define RTC_RBUDR_SHIFT 4
-#define RTC_RBUDR_MASK (1 << RTC_RBUDR_SHIFT)
-/* RTC Hour register */
-#define HOUR_PM_SHIFT 6
-#define HOUR_PM_MASK (1 << HOUR_PM_SHIFT)
-/* RTC Alarm Enable */
-#define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
-#define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
-
-/* For the RTCAE1 register, we write this value to enable the alarm */
-#define ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE 0x77
-
-#define MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY_US 200
-
-enum {
- RTC_SEC = 0,
- RTC_MIN,
- RTC_HOUR,
- RTC_WEEKDAY,
- RTC_MONTH,
- RTC_YEAR,
- RTC_DATE,
- RTC_NR_TIME
-};
-
-struct max77802_rtc_info {
- struct device *dev;
- struct max77686_dev *max77802;
- struct i2c_client *rtc;
- struct rtc_device *rtc_dev;
- struct mutex lock;
-
- struct regmap *regmap;
-
- int virq;
- int rtc_24hr_mode;
-};
-
-enum MAX77802_RTC_OP {
- MAX77802_RTC_WRITE,
- MAX77802_RTC_READ,
-};
-
-static void max77802_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
- int rtc_24hr_mode)
-{
- tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & 0xff;
- tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & 0xff;
- if (rtc_24hr_mode)
- tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & 0x1f;
- else {
- tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & 0x0f;
- if (data[RTC_HOUR] & HOUR_PM_MASK)
- tm->tm_hour += 12;
- }
-
- /* Only a single bit is set in data[], so fls() would be equivalent */
- tm->tm_wday = ffs(data[RTC_WEEKDAY] & 0xff) - 1;
- tm->tm_mday = data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f;
- tm->tm_mon = (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0x0f) - 1;
-
- tm->tm_year = data[RTC_YEAR] & 0xff;
- tm->tm_yday = 0;
- tm->tm_isdst = 0;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data)
-{
- data[RTC_SEC] = tm->tm_sec;
- data[RTC_MIN] = tm->tm_min;
- data[RTC_HOUR] = tm->tm_hour;
- data[RTC_WEEKDAY] = 1 << tm->tm_wday;
- data[RTC_DATE] = tm->tm_mday;
- data[RTC_MONTH] = tm->tm_mon + 1;
- data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year;
-
- return 0;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_update(struct max77802_rtc_info *info,
- enum MAX77802_RTC_OP op)
-{
- int ret;
- unsigned int data;
-
- if (op == MAX77802_RTC_WRITE)
- data = 1 << RTC_UDR_SHIFT;
- else
- data = 1 << RTC_RBUDR_SHIFT;
-
- ret = regmap_update_bits(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE0, data, data);
- if (ret < 0)
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write update reg(ret=%d, data=0x%x)\n",
- __func__, ret, data);
- else {
- /* Minimum delay required before RTC update. */
- usleep_range(MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY_US,
- MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY_US * 2);
- }
-
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
- int ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read time reg(%d)\n", __func__,
- ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- max77802_rtc_data_to_tm(data, tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
-
- ret = rtc_valid_tm(tm);
-
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
- int ret;
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_tm_to_data(tm, data);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write time reg(%d)\n", __func__,
- ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
-
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
- unsigned int val;
- int ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s:%d fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, __LINE__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- max77802_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
-
- alrm->enabled = 0;
- ret = regmap_read(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_AE1, &val);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s:%d fail to read alarm enable(%d)\n",
- __func__, __LINE__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
- if (val)
- alrm->enabled = 1;
-
- alrm->pending = 0;
- ret = regmap_read(info->max77802->regmap, MAX77802_REG_STATUS2, &val);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s:%d fail to read status2 reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, __LINE__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- if (val & (1 << 2)) /* RTCA1 */
- alrm->pending = 1;
-
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return 0;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77802_rtc_info *info)
-{
- int ret;
-
- if (!mutex_is_locked(&info->lock))
- dev_warn(info->dev, "%s: should have mutex locked\n", __func__);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_AE1, 0);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
-out:
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77802_rtc_info *info)
-{
- int ret;
-
- if (!mutex_is_locked(&info->lock))
- dev_warn(info->dev, "%s: should have mutex locked\n",
- __func__);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_AE1,
- ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE);
-
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
-out:
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
- int ret;
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_stop_alarm(info);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
-
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- if (alrm->enabled)
- ret = max77802_rtc_start_alarm(info);
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(struct device *dev,
- unsigned int enabled)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- int ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
- if (enabled)
- ret = max77802_rtc_start_alarm(info);
- else
- ret = max77802_rtc_stop_alarm(info);
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
-
- return ret;
-}
-
-static irqreturn_t max77802_rtc_alarm_irq(int irq, void *data)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = data;
-
- dev_dbg(info->dev, "%s:irq(%d)\n", __func__, irq);
-
- rtc_update_irq(info->rtc_dev, 1, RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF);
-
- return IRQ_HANDLED;
-}
-
-static const struct rtc_class_ops max77802_rtc_ops = {
- .read_time = max77802_rtc_read_time,
- .set_time = max77802_rtc_set_time,
- .read_alarm = max77802_rtc_read_alarm,
- .set_alarm = max77802_rtc_set_alarm,
- .alarm_irq_enable = max77802_rtc_alarm_irq_enable,
-};
-
-static int max77802_rtc_init_reg(struct max77802_rtc_info *info)
-{
- u8 data[2];
- int ret;
-
- max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
-
- /* Set RTC control register : Binary mode, 24hour mdoe */
- data[0] = (1 << BCD_EN_SHIFT) | (1 << MODEL24_SHIFT);
- data[1] = (0 << BCD_EN_SHIFT) | (1 << MODEL24_SHIFT);
-
- info->rtc_24hr_mode = 1;
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_CONTROLM, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write controlm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, ret);
- return ret;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
-{
- struct max77686_dev *max77802 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info;
- int ret;
-
- dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
-
- info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct max77802_rtc_info),
- GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!info)
- return -ENOMEM;
-
- mutex_init(&info->lock);
- info->dev = &pdev->dev;
- info->max77802 = max77802;
- info->rtc = max77802->i2c;
-
- platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_init_reg(info);
-
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to initialize RTC reg:%d\n", ret);
- return ret;
- }
-
- device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
-
- info->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, "max77802-rtc",
- &max77802_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
-
- if (IS_ERR(info->rtc_dev)) {
- ret = PTR_ERR(info->rtc_dev);
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register RTC device: %d\n", ret);
- if (ret == 0)
- ret = -EINVAL;
- return ret;
- }
-
- if (!max77802->rtc_irq_data) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No RTC regmap IRQ chip\n");
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
- info->virq = regmap_irq_get_virq(max77802->rtc_irq_data,
- MAX77686_RTCIRQ_RTCA1);
-
- if (info->virq <= 0) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get virtual IRQ %d\n",
- MAX77686_RTCIRQ_RTCA1);
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
- ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, info->virq, NULL,
- max77802_rtc_alarm_irq, 0, "rtc-alarm1",
- info);
- if (ret < 0)
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to request alarm IRQ: %d: %d\n",
- info->virq, ret);
-
- return ret;
-}
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
-static int max77802_rtc_suspend(struct device *dev)
-{
- if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
-
- return enable_irq_wake(info->virq);
- }
-
- return 0;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_resume(struct device *dev)
-{
- if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
-
- return disable_irq_wake(info->virq);
- }
-
- return 0;
-}
-#endif
-
-static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max77802_rtc_pm_ops,
- max77802_rtc_suspend, max77802_rtc_resume);
-
-static const struct platform_device_id rtc_id[] = {
- { "max77802-rtc", 0 },
- {},
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, rtc_id);
-
-static struct platform_driver max77802_rtc_driver = {
- .driver = {
- .name = "max77802-rtc",
- .pm = &max77802_rtc_pm_ops,
- },
- .probe = max77802_rtc_probe,
- .id_table = rtc_id,
-};
-
-module_platform_driver(max77802_rtc_driver);
-
-MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Maxim MAX77802 RTC driver");
-MODULE_AUTHOR("Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>");
-MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The max77686 RTC driver now supports the max77802 RTC as
well so there's no need to have a separate driver anymore.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #8.
drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 10 -
drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1 -
drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c | 502 ---------------------------------------------
3 files changed, 513 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
index 376322f71fd5..ef456d3cf265 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
@@ -335,16 +335,6 @@ config RTC_DRV_RK808
This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
will be called rk808-rtc.
-config RTC_DRV_MAX77802
- tristate "Maxim 77802 RTC"
- depends on MFD_MAX77686
- help
- If you say yes here you will get support for the
- RTC of Maxim MAX77802 PMIC.
-
- This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
- will be called rtc-max77802.
-
config RTC_DRV_RS5C372
tristate "Ricoh R2025S/D, RS5C372A/B, RV5C386, RV5C387A"
help
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Makefile b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
index 62d61b26ca7e..ed4519efa3ca 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
@@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_M48T86) += rtc-m48t86.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX6900) += rtc-max6900.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX6902) += rtc-max6902.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686) += rtc-max77686.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802) += rtc-max77802.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907) += rtc-max8907.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8925) += rtc-max8925.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997) += rtc-max8997.o
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
deleted file mode 100644
index 82ffcc5a5345..000000000000
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77802.c
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,502 +0,0 @@
-/*
- * RTC driver for Maxim MAX77802
- *
- * Copyright (C) 2013 Google, Inc
- *
- * Copyright (C) 2012 Samsung Electronics Co.Ltd
- *
- * based on rtc-max8997.c
- *
- * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
- * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
- * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
- * option) any later version.
- *
- */
-
-#include <linux/slab.h>
-#include <linux/rtc.h>
-#include <linux/delay.h>
-#include <linux/mutex.h>
-#include <linux/module.h>
-#include <linux/platform_device.h>
-#include <linux/mfd/max77686-private.h>
-#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
-#include <linux/regmap.h>
-
-/* RTC Control Register */
-#define BCD_EN_SHIFT 0
-#define BCD_EN_MASK (1 << BCD_EN_SHIFT)
-#define MODEL24_SHIFT 1
-#define MODEL24_MASK (1 << MODEL24_SHIFT)
-/* RTC Update Register1 */
-#define RTC_UDR_SHIFT 0
-#define RTC_UDR_MASK (1 << RTC_UDR_SHIFT)
-#define RTC_RBUDR_SHIFT 4
-#define RTC_RBUDR_MASK (1 << RTC_RBUDR_SHIFT)
-/* RTC Hour register */
-#define HOUR_PM_SHIFT 6
-#define HOUR_PM_MASK (1 << HOUR_PM_SHIFT)
-/* RTC Alarm Enable */
-#define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
-#define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
-
-/* For the RTCAE1 register, we write this value to enable the alarm */
-#define ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE 0x77
-
-#define MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY_US 200
-
-enum {
- RTC_SEC = 0,
- RTC_MIN,
- RTC_HOUR,
- RTC_WEEKDAY,
- RTC_MONTH,
- RTC_YEAR,
- RTC_DATE,
- RTC_NR_TIME
-};
-
-struct max77802_rtc_info {
- struct device *dev;
- struct max77686_dev *max77802;
- struct i2c_client *rtc;
- struct rtc_device *rtc_dev;
- struct mutex lock;
-
- struct regmap *regmap;
-
- int virq;
- int rtc_24hr_mode;
-};
-
-enum MAX77802_RTC_OP {
- MAX77802_RTC_WRITE,
- MAX77802_RTC_READ,
-};
-
-static void max77802_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
- int rtc_24hr_mode)
-{
- tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & 0xff;
- tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & 0xff;
- if (rtc_24hr_mode)
- tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & 0x1f;
- else {
- tm->tm_hour = data[RTC_HOUR] & 0x0f;
- if (data[RTC_HOUR] & HOUR_PM_MASK)
- tm->tm_hour += 12;
- }
-
- /* Only a single bit is set in data[], so fls() would be equivalent */
- tm->tm_wday = ffs(data[RTC_WEEKDAY] & 0xff) - 1;
- tm->tm_mday = data[RTC_DATE] & 0x1f;
- tm->tm_mon = (data[RTC_MONTH] & 0x0f) - 1;
-
- tm->tm_year = data[RTC_YEAR] & 0xff;
- tm->tm_yday = 0;
- tm->tm_isdst = 0;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_tm_to_data(struct rtc_time *tm, u8 *data)
-{
- data[RTC_SEC] = tm->tm_sec;
- data[RTC_MIN] = tm->tm_min;
- data[RTC_HOUR] = tm->tm_hour;
- data[RTC_WEEKDAY] = 1 << tm->tm_wday;
- data[RTC_DATE] = tm->tm_mday;
- data[RTC_MONTH] = tm->tm_mon + 1;
- data[RTC_YEAR] = tm->tm_year;
-
- return 0;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_update(struct max77802_rtc_info *info,
- enum MAX77802_RTC_OP op)
-{
- int ret;
- unsigned int data;
-
- if (op == MAX77802_RTC_WRITE)
- data = 1 << RTC_UDR_SHIFT;
- else
- data = 1 << RTC_RBUDR_SHIFT;
-
- ret = regmap_update_bits(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE0, data, data);
- if (ret < 0)
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write update reg(ret=%d, data=0x%x)\n",
- __func__, ret, data);
- else {
- /* Minimum delay required before RTC update. */
- usleep_range(MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY_US,
- MAX77802_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY_US * 2);
- }
-
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
- int ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read time reg(%d)\n", __func__,
- ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- max77802_rtc_data_to_tm(data, tm, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
-
- ret = rtc_valid_tm(tm);
-
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
- int ret;
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_tm_to_data(tm, data);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write time reg(%d)\n", __func__,
- ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
-
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
- unsigned int val;
- int ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s:%d fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, __LINE__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- max77802_rtc_data_to_tm(data, &alrm->time, info->rtc_24hr_mode);
-
- alrm->enabled = 0;
- ret = regmap_read(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_AE1, &val);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s:%d fail to read alarm enable(%d)\n",
- __func__, __LINE__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
- if (val)
- alrm->enabled = 1;
-
- alrm->pending = 0;
- ret = regmap_read(info->max77802->regmap, MAX77802_REG_STATUS2, &val);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s:%d fail to read status2 reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, __LINE__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- if (val & (1 << 2)) /* RTCA1 */
- alrm->pending = 1;
-
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return 0;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77802_rtc_info *info)
-{
- int ret;
-
- if (!mutex_is_locked(&info->lock))
- dev_warn(info->dev, "%s: should have mutex locked\n", __func__);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_AE1, 0);
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
-out:
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_start_alarm(struct max77802_rtc_info *info)
-{
- int ret;
-
- if (!mutex_is_locked(&info->lock))
- dev_warn(info->dev, "%s: should have mutex locked\n",
- __func__);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_AE1,
- ALARM_ENABLE_VALUE);
-
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to read alarm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
-out:
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
- int ret;
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_tm_to_data(&alrm->time, data);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_stop_alarm(info);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
-
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write alarm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, ret);
- goto out;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
-
- if (alrm->enabled)
- ret = max77802_rtc_start_alarm(info);
-out:
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(struct device *dev,
- unsigned int enabled)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
- int ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&info->lock);
- if (enabled)
- ret = max77802_rtc_start_alarm(info);
- else
- ret = max77802_rtc_stop_alarm(info);
- mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
-
- return ret;
-}
-
-static irqreturn_t max77802_rtc_alarm_irq(int irq, void *data)
-{
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = data;
-
- dev_dbg(info->dev, "%s:irq(%d)\n", __func__, irq);
-
- rtc_update_irq(info->rtc_dev, 1, RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF);
-
- return IRQ_HANDLED;
-}
-
-static const struct rtc_class_ops max77802_rtc_ops = {
- .read_time = max77802_rtc_read_time,
- .set_time = max77802_rtc_set_time,
- .read_alarm = max77802_rtc_read_alarm,
- .set_alarm = max77802_rtc_set_alarm,
- .alarm_irq_enable = max77802_rtc_alarm_irq_enable,
-};
-
-static int max77802_rtc_init_reg(struct max77802_rtc_info *info)
-{
- u8 data[2];
- int ret;
-
- max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_READ);
-
- /* Set RTC control register : Binary mode, 24hour mdoe */
- data[0] = (1 << BCD_EN_SHIFT) | (1 << MODEL24_SHIFT);
- data[1] = (0 << BCD_EN_SHIFT) | (1 << MODEL24_SHIFT);
-
- info->rtc_24hr_mode = 1;
-
- ret = regmap_bulk_write(info->max77802->regmap,
- MAX77802_RTC_CONTROLM, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(info->dev, "%s: fail to write controlm reg(%d)\n",
- __func__, ret);
- return ret;
- }
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_update(info, MAX77802_RTC_WRITE);
- return ret;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
-{
- struct max77686_dev *max77802 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info;
- int ret;
-
- dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
-
- info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct max77802_rtc_info),
- GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!info)
- return -ENOMEM;
-
- mutex_init(&info->lock);
- info->dev = &pdev->dev;
- info->max77802 = max77802;
- info->rtc = max77802->i2c;
-
- platform_set_drvdata(pdev, info);
-
- ret = max77802_rtc_init_reg(info);
-
- if (ret < 0) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to initialize RTC reg:%d\n", ret);
- return ret;
- }
-
- device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
-
- info->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, "max77802-rtc",
- &max77802_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
-
- if (IS_ERR(info->rtc_dev)) {
- ret = PTR_ERR(info->rtc_dev);
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register RTC device: %d\n", ret);
- if (ret == 0)
- ret = -EINVAL;
- return ret;
- }
-
- if (!max77802->rtc_irq_data) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No RTC regmap IRQ chip\n");
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
- info->virq = regmap_irq_get_virq(max77802->rtc_irq_data,
- MAX77686_RTCIRQ_RTCA1);
-
- if (info->virq <= 0) {
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get virtual IRQ %d\n",
- MAX77686_RTCIRQ_RTCA1);
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
- ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, info->virq, NULL,
- max77802_rtc_alarm_irq, 0, "rtc-alarm1",
- info);
- if (ret < 0)
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to request alarm IRQ: %d: %d\n",
- info->virq, ret);
-
- return ret;
-}
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
-static int max77802_rtc_suspend(struct device *dev)
-{
- if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
-
- return enable_irq_wake(info->virq);
- }
-
- return 0;
-}
-
-static int max77802_rtc_resume(struct device *dev)
-{
- if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
- struct max77802_rtc_info *info = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
-
- return disable_irq_wake(info->virq);
- }
-
- return 0;
-}
-#endif
-
-static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(max77802_rtc_pm_ops,
- max77802_rtc_suspend, max77802_rtc_resume);
-
-static const struct platform_device_id rtc_id[] = {
- { "max77802-rtc", 0 },
- {},
-};
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, rtc_id);
-
-static struct platform_driver max77802_rtc_driver = {
- .driver = {
- .name = "max77802-rtc",
- .pm = &max77802_rtc_pm_ops,
- },
- .probe = max77802_rtc_probe,
- .id_table = rtc_id,
-};
-
-module_platform_driver(max77802_rtc_driver);
-
-MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Maxim MAX77802 RTC driver");
-MODULE_AUTHOR("Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>");
-MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 09/10] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #9.
arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
index 24dcd2bb1215..cdbe6dbc6e75 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
@@ -193,7 +193,6 @@ CONFIG_LEDS_TRIGGER_HEARTBEAT=y
CONFIG_RTC_CLASS=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
-CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_S5M=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_S3C=y
CONFIG_DMADEVICES=y
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 09/10] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas
The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #9.
arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
index 24dcd2bb1215..cdbe6dbc6e75 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig
@@ -193,7 +193,6 @@ CONFIG_LEDS_TRIGGER_HEARTBEAT=y
CONFIG_RTC_CLASS=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
-CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_S5M=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_S3C=y
CONFIG_DMADEVICES=y
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas, Arnd Bergmann, Olof Johansson,
linux-arm-kernel
The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
@@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
-CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RS5C372=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PALMAS=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_ST_LPC=y
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Javier Martinez Canillas, Arnd Bergmann, Olof Johansson,
linux-arm-kernel
The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
@@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
-CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RS5C372=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PALMAS=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_ST_LPC=y
--
2.5.0
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
@ 2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-21 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
@@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
-CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RS5C372=m
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PALMAS=y
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_ST_LPC=y
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-22 0:51 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2016-01-22 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The function is always returning zero even in case of failures since
> the ret value was not propagated to the callers. Fix the error path.
>
> Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2: None
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> index 7184a0eda793..6653c3d11b66 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
>
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Tested on Trats2 board with max77686:
Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
@ 2016-01-22 0:51 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2016-01-22 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The function is always returning zero even in case of failures since
> the ret value was not propagated to the callers. Fix the error path.
>
> Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2: None
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> index 7184a0eda793..6653c3d11b66 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static int max77686_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
>
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&info->lock);
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static int max77686_rtc_stop_alarm(struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Tested on Trats2 board with max77686:
Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-22 0:53 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2016-01-22 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
> to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
> ---
Tested on Trats2 board with max77686:
Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
@ 2016-01-22 0:53 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2016-01-22 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
> to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
> ---
Tested on Trats2 board with max77686:
Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-22 1:00 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2016-01-22 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
> before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
>
> Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
> using the platform device ID table for each device.
>
> This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
> that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> index 71ef2240b3fc..16033a2c2756 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> @@ -41,8 +41,6 @@
> #define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
> #define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
>
> -#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16000
> -
> enum {
> RTC_SEC = 0,
> RTC_MIN,
> @@ -54,6 +52,13 @@ enum {
> RTC_NR_TIME
> };
>
> +struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
> + /* Minimum delay needed for a RTC update */
> + unsigned long delay;
> + /* Mask used to read RTC registers value */
> + u8 mask;
> +};
> +
> struct max77686_rtc_info {
> struct device *dev;
> struct max77686_dev *max77686;
> @@ -63,6 +68,8 @@ struct max77686_rtc_info {
>
> struct regmap *regmap;
>
> + const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *drv_data;
> +
> int virq;
> int rtc_24hr_mode;
> };
> @@ -72,12 +79,19 @@ enum MAX77686_RTC_OP {
> MAX77686_RTC_READ,
> };
>
> +static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
> + .delay = 1600,
16000.
wakealarm does not work with 1600.
> + .mask = 0x7f,
> +};
> +
> static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
> - int rtc_24hr_mode)
> + struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
> {
> - tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & 0x7f;
> - tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & 0x7f;
> - if (rtc_24hr_mode)
> + int mask = info->drv_data->mask;
u8 mask
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
@ 2016-01-22 1:00 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2016-01-22 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
> before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
>
> Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
> using the platform device ID table for each device.
>
> This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
> that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
> - Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> index 71ef2240b3fc..16033a2c2756 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
> @@ -41,8 +41,6 @@
> #define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
> #define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
>
> -#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16000
> -
> enum {
> RTC_SEC = 0,
> RTC_MIN,
> @@ -54,6 +52,13 @@ enum {
> RTC_NR_TIME
> };
>
> +struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
> + /* Minimum delay needed for a RTC update */
> + unsigned long delay;
> + /* Mask used to read RTC registers value */
> + u8 mask;
> +};
> +
> struct max77686_rtc_info {
> struct device *dev;
> struct max77686_dev *max77686;
> @@ -63,6 +68,8 @@ struct max77686_rtc_info {
>
> struct regmap *regmap;
>
> + const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *drv_data;
> +
> int virq;
> int rtc_24hr_mode;
> };
> @@ -72,12 +79,19 @@ enum MAX77686_RTC_OP {
> MAX77686_RTC_READ,
> };
>
> +static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
> + .delay = 1600,
16000.
wakealarm does not work with 1600.
> + .mask = 0x7f,
> +};
> +
> static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
> - int rtc_24hr_mode)
> + struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
> {
> - tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & 0x7f;
> - tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & 0x7f;
> - if (rtc_24hr_mode)
> + int mask = info->drv_data->mask;
u8 mask
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
@ 2016-01-22 1:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2016-01-22 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt suggest to use usleep_range()
> instead of msleep() for small msec (1ms - 20ms) since msleep() will
> often sleep for 20ms for any value in that range.
>
> This is fine in this case since 16ms is the _minimum_ delay required
> by max77686 for an RTC update but by using usleep_range() instead of
> msleep(), the driver can support other RTC IP blocks with a shorter
> minimum delay (i.e: in the range of usecs instead of msecs).
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #3.
> - Fix typo error in changelog. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
Tested on Trats2 board with max77686:
Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
@ 2016-01-22 1:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2016-01-22 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt suggest to use usleep_range()
> instead of msleep() for small msec (1ms - 20ms) since msleep() will
> often sleep for 20ms for any value in that range.
>
> This is fine in this case since 16ms is the _minimum_ delay required
> by max77686 for an RTC update but by using usleep_range() instead of
> msleep(), the driver can support other RTC IP blocks with a shorter
> minimum delay (i.e: in the range of usecs instead of msecs).
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #3.
> - Fix typo error in changelog. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>
> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
Tested on Trats2 board with max77686:
Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
2016-01-22 1:00 ` [rtc-linux] " Krzysztof Kozlowski
@ 2016-01-22 1:48 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
Hello Krzysztof,
On 01/21/2016 10:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
>> before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
>>
>> Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
>> using the platform device ID table for each device.
>>
>> This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
>> that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>>
>> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
>> index 71ef2240b3fc..16033a2c2756 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
>> @@ -41,8 +41,6 @@
>> #define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
>> #define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
>>
>> -#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16000
>> -
>> enum {
>> RTC_SEC = 0,
>> RTC_MIN,
>> @@ -54,6 +52,13 @@ enum {
>> RTC_NR_TIME
>> };
>>
>> +struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
>> + /* Minimum delay needed for a RTC update */
>> + unsigned long delay;
>> + /* Mask used to read RTC registers value */
>> + u8 mask;
>> +};
>> +
>> struct max77686_rtc_info {
>> struct device *dev;
>> struct max77686_dev *max77686;
>> @@ -63,6 +68,8 @@ struct max77686_rtc_info {
>>
>> struct regmap *regmap;
>>
>> + const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *drv_data;
>> +
>> int virq;
>> int rtc_24hr_mode;
>> };
>> @@ -72,12 +79,19 @@ enum MAX77686_RTC_OP {
>> MAX77686_RTC_READ,
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
>> + .delay = 1600,
>
> 16000.
> wakealarm does not work with 1600.
>
>
Sigh, sorry for the silly typo error...
>> + .mask = 0x7f,
>> +};
>> +
>> static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
>> - int rtc_24hr_mode)
>> + struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
>> {
>> - tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & 0x7f;
>> - tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & 0x7f;
>> - if (rtc_24hr_mode)
>> + int mask = info->drv_data->mask;
>
> u8 mask
>
Right, I forgot to change this when used u8 for the mask field.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
If you don't mind I'll wait a couple of days before posting a v3
otherwise I may be re-spining too fast and spamming other people
that didn't have time to look at the series yet.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
@ 2016-01-22 1:48 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc
Hello Krzysztof,
On 01/21/2016 10:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22.01.2016 05:23, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
>> before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
>>
>> Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
>> using the platform device ID table for each device.
>>
>> This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
>> that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Add a max77686 prefix to rtc_driver_data. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Comment about the .delay and .mask fields. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Change .mask type to u8. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Make .drv_data field const. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Don't cast to drop const on .drv_data asign. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>> - Use platform_get_device_id() macro. Suggested by Krzysztof Kozlowski.
>>
>> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
>> index 71ef2240b3fc..16033a2c2756 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c
>> @@ -41,8 +41,6 @@
>> #define ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT 7
>> #define ALARM_ENABLE_MASK (1 << ALARM_ENABLE_SHIFT)
>>
>> -#define MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY 16000
>> -
>> enum {
>> RTC_SEC = 0,
>> RTC_MIN,
>> @@ -54,6 +52,13 @@ enum {
>> RTC_NR_TIME
>> };
>>
>> +struct max77686_rtc_driver_data {
>> + /* Minimum delay needed for a RTC update */
>> + unsigned long delay;
>> + /* Mask used to read RTC registers value */
>> + u8 mask;
>> +};
>> +
>> struct max77686_rtc_info {
>> struct device *dev;
>> struct max77686_dev *max77686;
>> @@ -63,6 +68,8 @@ struct max77686_rtc_info {
>>
>> struct regmap *regmap;
>>
>> + const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data *drv_data;
>> +
>> int virq;
>> int rtc_24hr_mode;
>> };
>> @@ -72,12 +79,19 @@ enum MAX77686_RTC_OP {
>> MAX77686_RTC_READ,
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct max77686_rtc_driver_data max77686_drv_data = {
>> + .delay = 1600,
>
> 16000.
> wakealarm does not work with 1600.
>
>
Sigh, sorry for the silly typo error...
>> + .mask = 0x7f,
>> +};
>> +
>> static void max77686_rtc_data_to_tm(u8 *data, struct rtc_time *tm,
>> - int rtc_24hr_mode)
>> + struct max77686_rtc_info *info)
>> {
>> - tm->tm_sec = data[RTC_SEC] & 0x7f;
>> - tm->tm_min = data[RTC_MIN] & 0x7f;
>> - if (rtc_24hr_mode)
>> + int mask = info->drv_data->mask;
>
> u8 mask
>
Right, I forgot to change this when used u8 for the mask field.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
If you don't mind I'll wait a couple of days before posting a v3
otherwise I may be re-spining too fast and spamming other people
that didn't have time to look at the series yet.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The function is always returning zero even in case of failures since
> the ret value was not propagated to the callers. Fix the error path.
>
> Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
@ 2016-01-22 9:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The function is always returning zero even in case of failures since
> the ret value was not propagated to the callers. Fix the error path.
>
> Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value
@ 2016-01-22 9:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The function is always returning zero even in case of failures since
> the ret value was not propagated to the callers. Fix the error path.
>
> Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:39 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
> to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
Similar stuffs are there on multiple places:
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
:::
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
Should we say:
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data,
ARRAY_SIZE(data));
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
@ 2016-01-22 9:39 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
> to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
Similar stuffs are there on multiple places:
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
:::
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
Should we say:
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data,
ARRAY_SIZE(data));
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
@ 2016-01-22 9:39 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
> to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
Similar stuffs are there on multiple places:
u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
:::
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
Should we say:
ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data,
ARRAY_SIZE(data));
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:41 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> RTC_SEC = 0,
> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
> __func__, ret, data);
> else {
> /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
> - msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
> + usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
> + MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
> }
>
Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
usleep_range(16000, 17000)?
I am using as usleep_range(16000, 16000) always.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
@ 2016-01-22 9:41 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> RTC_SEC = 0,
> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
> __func__, ret, data);
> else {
> /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
> - msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
> + usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
> + MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
> }
>
Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
usleep_range(16000, 17000)?
I am using as usleep_range(16000, 16000) always.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
@ 2016-01-22 9:41 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> RTC_SEC = 0,
> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
> __func__, ret, data);
> else {
> /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
> - msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
> + usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
> + MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
> }
>
Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
usleep_range(16000, 17000)?
I am using as usleep_range(16000, 16000) always.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:50 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
> before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
>
> Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
> using the platform device ID table for each device.
>
> This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
> that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
@ 2016-01-22 9:50 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
> before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
>
> Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
> using the platform device ID table for each device.
>
> This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
> that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values
@ 2016-01-22 9:50 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has some hard-coded values such as the minimum delay needed
> before a RTC update or the mask used for the sec/min/hour/etc registers.
>
> Use a data structure that contains these values and pass as driver data
> using the platform device ID table for each device.
>
> This allows to make the driver's ops callbacks more generic so other RTC
> that are similar but don't have the same values can also be supported.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:52 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The max77686 driver is generic enough that can be used for other
> Maxim RTC IP blocks but these might not have the same registers
> layout so instead of accessing the registers directly, add a map
> to translate offsets to the real registers addresses for each IP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers
@ 2016-01-22 9:52 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The max77686 driver is generic enough that can be used for other
> Maxim RTC IP blocks but these might not have the same registers
> layout so instead of accessing the registers directly, add a map
> to translate offsets to the real registers addresses for each IP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers
@ 2016-01-22 9:52 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The max77686 driver is generic enough that can be used for other
> Maxim RTC IP blocks but these might not have the same registers
> layout so instead of accessing the registers directly, add a map
> to translate offsets to the real registers addresses for each IP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:54 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks are very similar with only
> these differences:
>
> 0) The RTC registers layout and addresses are different.
>
> 1) The MAX77686 use 1 bit of the sec/min/hour/etc registers as the
> alarm enable while MAX77802 has a separate register for that.
>
> 2) The MAX77686 RTCYEAR register valid values range is 0..99 while
> for MAX77802 is 0..199.
>
> 3) The MAX77686 has a separate I2C address for the RTC registers
> while the MAX77802 uses the same I2C address as the PMIC regs.
>
> 5) The minimum delay before a RTC update (16 msecs vs 200 usecs).
>
> There are separate drivers for MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks
> but the differences are not that big so the driver can be extended
> to support both instead of duplicating a lot of code in 2 drivers.
>
> Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-22 9:54 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks are very similar with only
> these differences:
>
> 0) The RTC registers layout and addresses are different.
>
> 1) The MAX77686 use 1 bit of the sec/min/hour/etc registers as the
> alarm enable while MAX77802 has a separate register for that.
>
> 2) The MAX77686 RTCYEAR register valid values range is 0..99 while
> for MAX77802 is 0..199.
>
> 3) The MAX77686 has a separate I2C address for the RTC registers
> while the MAX77802 uses the same I2C address as the PMIC regs.
>
> 5) The minimum delay before a RTC update (16 msecs vs 200 usecs).
>
> There are separate drivers for MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks
> but the differences are not that big so the driver can be extended
> to support both instead of duplicating a lot of code in 2 drivers.
>
> Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-22 9:54 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks are very similar with only
> these differences:
>
> 0) The RTC registers layout and addresses are different.
>
> 1) The MAX77686 use 1 bit of the sec/min/hour/etc registers as the
> alarm enable while MAX77802 has a separate register for that.
>
> 2) The MAX77686 RTCYEAR register valid values range is 0..99 while
> for MAX77802 is 0..199.
>
> 3) The MAX77686 has a separate I2C address for the RTC registers
> while the MAX77802 uses the same I2C address as the PMIC regs.
>
> 5) The minimum delay before a RTC update (16 msecs vs 200 usecs).
>
> There are separate drivers for MAX77686 and MAX77802 RTC IP blocks
> but the differences are not that big so the driver can be extended
> to support both instead of duplicating a lot of code in 2 drivers.
>
> Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:56 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> It is better to use dev_*() log functions instead of pr_*() to print
> information about the device in the kernel log in a standardized way.
>
> This also allows to remove the local pr_fmt() defined macro.
>
> Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
@ 2016-01-22 9:56 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> It is better to use dev_*() log functions instead of pr_*() to print
> information about the device in the kernel log in a standardized way.
>
> This also allows to remove the local pr_fmt() defined macro.
>
> Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
@ 2016-01-22 9:56 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> It is better to use dev_*() log functions instead of pr_*() to print
> information about the device in the kernel log in a standardized way.
>
> This also allows to remove the local pr_fmt() defined macro.
>
> Suggested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc, Arnd Bergmann,
Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
>
> arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> @@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
> -CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
Do you need to make
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=m
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
@ 2016-01-22 9:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc, Arnd Bergmann,
Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
>
> arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> @@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
> -CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
Do you need to make
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=m
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
@ 2016-01-22 9:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc, Arnd Bergmann,
Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
>
> arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> @@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
> -CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
Do you need to make
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=m
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
@ 2016-01-22 9:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
>
> arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
> @@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
> -CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
Do you need to make
CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=m
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 9:59 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The max77686 RTC driver now supports the max77802 RTC as
> well so there's no need to have a separate driver anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver
@ 2016-01-22 9:59 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The max77686 RTC driver now supports the max77802 RTC as
> well so there's no need to have a separate driver anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver
@ 2016-01-22 9:59 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-22 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> The max77686 RTC driver now supports the max77802 RTC as
> well so there's no need to have a separate driver anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
2016-01-22 9:39 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
@ 2016-01-22 11:43 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laxman Dewangan, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
Hello Laxman,
Thanks a lot for your feedback and acks.
On 01/22/2016 06:39 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
>> to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>>
>>
> Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
>
>
> Similar stuffs are there on multiple places:
> u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
>
> :::
> ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
> MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
>
>
> Should we say:
> ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
> MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
>
Very good point, I'll change those on this patch as well for v3.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length
@ 2016-01-22 11:43 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laxman Dewangan, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
Hello Laxman,
Thanks a lot for your feedback and acks.
On 01/22/2016 06:39 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> It is better to use the ARRAY_SIZE() macro instead of the array length
>> to avoid bugs if the array is later changed and the length not updated.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>>
>>
> Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
>
>
> Similar stuffs are there on multiple places:
> u8 data[RTC_NR_TIME];
>
> :::
> ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
> MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, RTC_NR_TIME);
>
>
> Should we say:
> ret = regmap_bulk_read(info->max77686->rtc_regmap,
> MAX77686_ALARM1_SEC, data, ARRAY_SIZE(data));
>
Very good point, I'll change those on this patch as well for v3.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
2016-01-22 9:41 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
@ 2016-01-22 12:05 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laxman Dewangan, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
Hello Laxman,
On 01/22/2016 06:41 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> RTC_SEC = 0,
>> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
>> __func__, ret, data);
>> else {
>> /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
>> - msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
>> + usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
>> + MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
>> }
>>
>
> Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
> usleep_range(16000, 17000)?
>
Yes, I also didn't know how to make the delay smaller. If I do for example
usleep_range(delay, delay + 10000), then the 10000 delta would be too big
for max77802 (50 times the minimum required 200 delay).
So I used delay * 2 for two reasons:
1) That way is generic enough and can work for any delay
2) My understanding is that most of times the delay should be precise and
is not that bad if sometimes the delay is the worst case (2 * X) since
after all the delay is the minimum required.
I also see that usleep_range(X, X * 2) is a used pattern across the kernel.
> I am using as usleep_range(16000, 16000) always.
According to Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt, that's not a good
idea since usleep_range() is implemented using high-resolution timers
so by not using a range, the kernel won't be able to merge the wakeup
with other wakeups which leads to much more interrupts being triggered.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
@ 2016-01-22 12:05 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laxman Dewangan, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
Hello Laxman,
On 01/22/2016 06:41 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> RTC_SEC = 0,
>> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct max77686_rtc_info *info,
>> __func__, ret, data);
>> else {
>> /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
>> - msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
>> + usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
>> + MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
>> }
>>
>
> Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
> usleep_range(16000, 17000)?
>
Yes, I also didn't know how to make the delay smaller. If I do for example
usleep_range(delay, delay + 10000), then the 10000 delta would be too big
for max77802 (50 times the minimum required 200 delay).
So I used delay * 2 for two reasons:
1) That way is generic enough and can work for any delay
2) My understanding is that most of times the delay should be precise and
is not that bad if sometimes the delay is the worst case (2 * X) since
after all the delay is the minimum required.
I also see that usleep_range(X, X * 2) is a used pattern across the kernel.
> I am using as usleep_range(16000, 16000) always.
According to Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt, that's not a good
idea since usleep_range() is implemented using high-resolution timers
so by not using a range, the kernel won't be able to merge the wakeup
with other wakeups which leads to much more interrupts being triggered.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
2016-01-22 9:57 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
(?)
@ 2016-01-22 12:09 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laxman Dewangan, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc, Arnd Bergmann,
Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
Hello Laxman,
On 01/22/2016 06:57 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
>>
>> arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> @@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
>> -CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
>
> Do you need to make
>
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=m
>
Yes we should, the RTC_DRV_MAX778686 Kconfig symbol was enabled in multi_v7
before the "build as much as possible as a module" policy was asked so got
enabled built-in. The RTC_DRV_MAX77802 was introduced later so it was asked
to be built as a module instead.
I think we could do that as a separate patch though, once this series land.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
@ 2016-01-22 12:09 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laxman Dewangan, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc, Arnd Bergmann,
Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
Hello Laxman,
On 01/22/2016 06:57 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
>>
>> arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> @@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
>> -CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
>
> Do you need to make
>
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=m
>
Yes we should, the RTC_DRV_MAX778686 Kconfig symbol was enabled in multi_v7
before the "build as much as possible as a module" policy was asked so got
enabled built-in. The RTC_DRV_MAX77802 was introduced later so it was asked
to be built as a module instead.
I think we could do that as a separate patch though, once this series land.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol
@ 2016-01-22 12:09 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-22 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hello Laxman,
On 01/22/2016 06:57 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> The driver has been removed so the Kconfig symbol is not valid anymore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Add Krzysztof Kozlowski's Reviewed-by tag to patch #10.
>>
>> arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> index 314f6be2dca2..bdb42c09332c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> @@ -664,7 +664,6 @@ CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8907=y
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8997=m
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=y
>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_RK808=m
>> -CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77802=m
>
> Do you need to make
>
> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX77686=m
>
Yes we should, the RTC_DRV_MAX778686 Kconfig symbol was enabled in multi_v7
before the "build as much as possible as a module" policy was asked so got
enabled built-in. The RTC_DRV_MAX77802 was introduced later so it was asked
to be built as a module instead.
I think we could do that as a separate patch though, once this series land.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
2016-01-22 12:05 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-25 11:17 ` Laxman Dewangan
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-25 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 05:35 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Laxman,
>
> On 01/22/2016 06:41 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> RTC_SEC = 0,
>>> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct
>>> max77686_rtc_info *info,
>>> __func__, ret, data);
>>> else {
>>> /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
>>> - msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
>>> + usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
>>> + MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
>> usleep_range(16000, 17000)?
>>
>
> Yes, I also didn't know how to make the delay smaller. If I do for
> example
>
> usleep_range(delay, delay + 10000), then the 10000 delta would be too big
> for max77802 (50 times the minimum required 200 delay).
>
> So I used delay * 2 for two reasons:
>
> 1) That way is generic enough and can work for any delay
>
> 2) My understanding is that most of times the delay should be precise and
> is not that bad if sometimes the delay is the worst case (2 * X) since
> after all the delay is the minimum required.
>
> I also see that usleep_range(X, X * 2) is a used pattern across the
> kernel.
OK, fine to me here.
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
@ 2016-01-25 11:17 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-25 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 05:35 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Laxman,
>
> On 01/22/2016 06:41 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> RTC_SEC = 0,
>>> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct
>>> max77686_rtc_info *info,
>>> __func__, ret, data);
>>> else {
>>> /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
>>> - msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
>>> + usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
>>> + MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
>> usleep_range(16000, 17000)?
>>
>
> Yes, I also didn't know how to make the delay smaller. If I do for
> example
>
> usleep_range(delay, delay + 10000), then the 10000 delta would be too big
> for max77802 (50 times the minimum required 200 delay).
>
> So I used delay * 2 for two reasons:
>
> 1) That way is generic enough and can work for any delay
>
> 2) My understanding is that most of times the delay should be precise and
> is not that bad if sometimes the delay is the worst case (2 * X) since
> after all the delay is the minimum required.
>
> I also see that usleep_range(X, X * 2) is a used pattern across the
> kernel.
OK, fine to me here.
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep()
@ 2016-01-25 11:17 ` Laxman Dewangan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Laxman Dewangan @ 2016-01-25 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas, linux-kernel
Cc: Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi, Alexandre Belloni,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux-samsung-soc
On Friday 22 January 2016 05:35 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Laxman,
>
> On 01/22/2016 06:41 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 22 January 2016 01:53 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> RTC_SEC = 0,
>>> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int max77686_rtc_update(struct
>>> max77686_rtc_info *info,
>>> __func__, ret, data);
>>> else {
>>> /* Minimum 16ms delay required before RTC update. */
>>> - msleep(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY);
>>> + usleep_range(MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY,
>>> + MAX77686_RTC_UPDATE_DELAY * 2);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Instead of making usleep_range(16000, 32000), can we make small range as
>> usleep_range(16000, 17000)?
>>
>
> Yes, I also didn't know how to make the delay smaller. If I do for
> example
>
> usleep_range(delay, delay + 10000), then the 10000 delta would be too big
> for max77802 (50 times the minimum required 200 delay).
>
> So I used delay * 2 for two reasons:
>
> 1) That way is generic enough and can work for any delay
>
> 2) My understanding is that most of times the delay should be precise and
> is not that bad if sometimes the delay is the worst case (2 * X) since
> after all the delay is the minimum required.
>
> I also see that usleep_range(X, X * 2) is a used pattern across the
> kernel.
OK, fine to me here.
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
(?)
@ 2016-01-25 16:06 ` Alexandre Belloni
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2016-01-25 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas
Cc: linux-kernel, Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Arnd Bergmann, Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
Hi,
On 21/01/2016 at 17:23:23 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote :
> On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
> we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
> the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
> drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
>
> By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
> could be supported as well like the max77620.
>
> This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
> by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
>
> I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
> a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
> machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
> that no regressions were introduced.
>
> On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
> the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
> to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
>
> It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
> and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
> things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
>
Yeah, Mark suggested that regmap_field may be what we were looking for
but I'm not convinced it really fits.
> In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
> removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
> reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
> regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
> simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
>
I don't have any objection or other comment on that series. So
basically, I'm waiting for v3 and I'll apply it.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-25 16:06 ` Alexandre Belloni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2016-01-25 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Javier Martinez Canillas
Cc: linux-kernel, Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Arnd Bergmann, Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
Hi,
On 21/01/2016 at 17:23:23 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote :
> On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
> we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
> the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
> drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
>
> By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
> could be supported as well like the max77620.
>
> This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
> by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
>
> I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
> a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
> machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
> that no regressions were introduced.
>
> On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
> the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
> to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
>
> It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
> and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
> things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
>
Yeah, Mark suggested that regmap_field may be what we were looking for
but I'm not convinced it really fits.
> In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
> removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
> reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
> regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
> simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
>
I don't have any objection or other comment on that series. So
basically, I'm waiting for v3 and I'll apply it.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-25 16:06 ` Alexandre Belloni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2016-01-25 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi,
On 21/01/2016 at 17:23:23 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote :
> On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
> we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
> the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
> drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
>
> By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
> could be supported as well like the max77620.
>
> This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
> by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
>
> I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
> a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
> machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
> that no regressions were introduced.
>
> On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
> the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
> to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
>
> It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
> and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
> things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
>
Yeah, Mark suggested that regmap_field may be what we were looking for
but I'm not convinced it really fits.
> In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
> removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
> reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
> regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
> simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
>
I don't have any objection or other comment on that series. So
basically, I'm waiting for v3 and I'll apply it.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
2016-01-25 16:06 ` [rtc-linux] " Alexandre Belloni
(?)
@ 2016-01-25 23:45 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-25 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Belloni
Cc: linux-kernel, Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Arnd Bergmann, Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
Hello Alexandre,
On 01/25/2016 01:06 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21/01/2016 at 17:23:23 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote :
>> On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
>> we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
>> the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
>> drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
>>
>> By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
>> could be supported as well like the max77620.
>>
>> This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
>> by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
>>
>> I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
>> a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
>> machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
>> that no regressions were introduced.
>>
>> On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
>> the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
>> to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
>>
>> It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
>> and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
>> things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
>>
>
> Yeah, Mark suggested that regmap_field may be what we were looking for
> but I'm not convinced it really fits.
>
Ok.
>> In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
>> removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
>> reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
>> regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
>> simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
>>
>
> I don't have any objection or other comment on that series. So
> basically, I'm waiting for v3 and I'll apply it.
>
>
Great, I'll post a v3 tomorrow then. Thanks!
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-25 23:45 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-25 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Belloni
Cc: linux-kernel, Kukjin Kim, rtc-linux, Chanwoo Choi,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Laxman Dewangan, linux-samsung-soc,
Arnd Bergmann, Olof Johansson, linux-arm-kernel
Hello Alexandre,
On 01/25/2016 01:06 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21/01/2016 at 17:23:23 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote :
>> On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
>> we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
>> the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
>> drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
>>
>> By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
>> could be supported as well like the max77620.
>>
>> This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
>> by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
>>
>> I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
>> a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
>> machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
>> that no regressions were introduced.
>>
>> On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
>> the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
>> to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
>>
>> It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
>> and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
>> things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
>>
>
> Yeah, Mark suggested that regmap_field may be what we were looking for
> but I'm not convinced it really fits.
>
Ok.
>> In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
>> removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
>> reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
>> regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
>> simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
>>
>
> I don't have any objection or other comment on that series. So
> basically, I'm waiting for v3 and I'll apply it.
>
>
Great, I'll post a v3 tomorrow then. Thanks!
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support
@ 2016-01-25 23:45 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Javier Martinez Canillas @ 2016-01-25 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hello Alexandre,
On 01/25/2016 01:06 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21/01/2016 at 17:23:23 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote :
>> On a recent disussion [0] with Krzysztof Kozlowski and Laxman Dewangan,
>> we came to the conclusion that the max77686 and max77802 RTC are almost
>> the same with only a few differences so there shouldn't be two separate
>> drivers and is better to extend max77686 driver and delete rtc-max77802.
>>
>> By making the driver more generic, other RTC IP blocks from Maxim PMICs
>> could be supported as well like the max77620.
>>
>> This is a v2 of a series that do this, that address issues pointed out
>> by Krzysztof Kozlowski. The v1 can be found at [1].
>>
>> I've tested this patch-set on an Exynos5800 Peach Pi Chromebook that has
>> a max77802 PMIC and the RTC was working correctly but I don't have a
>> machine with max77686 so I will really appreaciate if someone can test
>> that no regressions were introduced.
>>
>> On an IRC conversation, Alexandre suggested to use the field support in
>> the regmap API to avoid needing a translation table. I spent some time
>> to look at it and I'm not so sure if it fits that well in this case.
>>
>> It's true that we could model each register as if it has a single field
>> and provide a different reg address but I'm not sure if that would make
>> things more clear or cause more confusion for future code archaeologists.
>>
>
> Yeah, Mark suggested that regmap_field may be what we were looking for
> but I'm not convinced it really fits.
>
Ok.
>> In any case, I think this series are a move in the right direction since
>> removes code duplication and a complete driver and also allows others to
>> reuse the driver for another RTC chip. We can later simplify and use the
>> regmap field API or extend the regmap core if that could make things even
>> simpler but I propose to do it as a follow up.
>>
>
> I don't have any objection or other comment on that series. So
> basically, I'm waiting for v3 and I'll apply it.
>
>
Great, I'll post a v3 tomorrow then. Thanks!
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-25 23:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-01-21 20:23 [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] rtc: max77686: Fix max77686_rtc_read_alarm() return value Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 0:51 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-01-22 0:51 ` [rtc-linux] " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-01-22 9:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:35 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:35 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] rtc: max77686: Use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of current array length Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 0:53 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-01-22 0:53 ` [rtc-linux] " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-01-22 9:39 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:39 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:39 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 11:43 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 11:43 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] rtc: max77686: Use usleep_range() instead of msleep() Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 1:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-01-22 1:02 ` [rtc-linux] " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-01-22 9:41 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:41 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:41 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 12:05 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 12:05 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-25 11:17 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-25 11:17 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-25 11:17 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] rtc: max77686: Use a driver data struct instead hard-coded values Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 1:00 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-01-22 1:00 ` [rtc-linux] " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-01-22 1:48 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 1:48 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 9:50 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:50 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:50 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] rtc: max77686: Add an indirection level to access RTC registers Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 9:52 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:52 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:52 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] rtc: max77686: Add max77802 support Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 9:54 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:54 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:54 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn() Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 9:56 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:56 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:56 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: Remove Maxim 77802 driver Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 9:59 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:59 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:59 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Remove MAX77802 RTC Kconfig symbol Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-21 20:23 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 9:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 9:57 ` [rtc-linux] " Laxman Dewangan
2016-01-22 12:09 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 12:09 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-22 12:09 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-25 16:06 ` [PATCH v2 00/10] rtc: max77686: Extend driver and add max77802 support Alexandre Belloni
2016-01-25 16:06 ` Alexandre Belloni
2016-01-25 16:06 ` [rtc-linux] " Alexandre Belloni
2016-01-25 23:45 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-25 23:45 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-01-25 23:45 ` [rtc-linux] " Javier Martinez Canillas
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.