From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
To: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@diasemi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] mfd: da9063: Add custom regmap for DA9063L
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:50:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a843a44-7f5a-e8c6-4de9-7e6682a07e35@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6ED8E3B22081A4459DAC7699F3695FB701941AE842@SW-EX-MBX02.diasemi.com>
On 06/06/2018 11:47 AM, Steve Twiss wrote:
> Hi Marek and Geert,
>
> On 06 June 2018 00:02 Marek Vasut wrote,
>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] mfd: da9063: Add custom regmap for DA9063L
>>
>> On 06/05/2018 10:17 PM, Steve Twiss wrote:
>>> Hi Marek and Geert,
>>>
>>> On 04 June 2018 17:25 Marek Vasut wrote,
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] mfd: da9063: Add custom regmap for DA9063L
>>>>
>>>> On 06/04/2018 09:39 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marek, Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> While the datasheet for DA9063L (2v1, 23-Mar-2017) lists the RTC register
>>>>>> block, the DA9063L does not have an RTC. Add custom regmap for DA9063L to
>>>>>> prevent access into that register block.
>>>
>>> Ok. I've said previously in [v3 07/10], but I'll copy again:
>>> There is now an internal Dialog request to remove the RTC references from the DA9063L datasheet.
>>> Adding that first part to the sentence in the commit log: "While the datasheet for DA9063L
>>> (2v1, 23-Mar-2017) lists the RTC register block" -- it exists in error for the register map table
>>> on page 91, but the datasheet also identifies those registers in Table 102 on page 126 as
>>> "Reserved".
>>>
>>> Pointing out the ambiguity in this version of the datasheet seems redundant in the commit log.
>>> Also Dialog do not store a history of Datasheets on their website so once this is updated (although
>>> this update is not in my hands) the datasheet will be replaced. So, it seems this comment could
>>> make the commit message just as misleading as the current datasheet.
>>>
>>> How about something simpler?
>>> "The DA9063L does not have an RTC. Add custom regmap for DA9063L to prevent access
>>> into that register block."
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your patch!
>>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c
>>>>>> @@ -254,6 +341,10 @@ static int da9063_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the line above doesn't check da9063->type, but da9063-
>>>>> variant_code...
>>>>>
>>>>>> da9063_regmap_config.rd_table = &da9063_ad_readable_table;
>>>>>> da9063_regmap_config.wr_table = &da9063_ad_writeable_table;
>>>>>> da9063_regmap_config.volatile_table = &da9063_ad_volatile_table;
>>>>>> + } else if (da9063->type == PMIC_TYPE_DA9063L) {
>>>>>
>>>>> ... so this may be slightly confusing.
>>>>
>>>> I know.
>>>>
>>>>>> + da9063_regmap_config.rd_table = &da9063l_bb_readable_table;
>>>>>> + da9063_regmap_config.wr_table = &da9063l_bb_writeable_table;
>>>>>> + da9063_regmap_config.volatile_table = &da9063l_bb_volatile_table;
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>> da9063_regmap_config.rd_table = &da9063_bb_readable_table;
>>>>>> da9063_regmap_config.wr_table = &da9063_bb_writeable_table;
>>>>>
>>>>> However, da9063->variant_code doesn't seem to have been filled in at this
>>>>> point yet (the call to da9063_device_init() doing so is below, at the end
>>>>> of the probe function!), so commit 9cb42e2a8ed06e91 ("mfd: da9063: Add
>>>>> support for AD silicon variant") never actually handled the AD silicon variant
>>>>> correctly? Or am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Okay ... No. You're not missing anything. I had noticed that.
>>> The AD chip model is not referenced and by default only the BB chip model is used.
>>>
>>>> Ha, that is a good point.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's a good point, but it's not an amusing point.
>>> The device tree only distinguishes a "dlg,da9063", there is no AD type in the DT schema.
>>> There is no datasheet listing AD registers supported by Dialog, only BB.
>>>
>>> But, AD registers were added back into the header file in commit 9cb42e2a8ed06e91
>>> and the RTC driver was updated to distinguish between the AD and BB according to
>>> the type of variant detected at run-time during the da9063_device_init() call.
>>>
>>> The real problem is that this leads to two competing chip detection methods for the
>>> DA9063. The function da9063_device_init() autodetects the chip variant, but
>>> autodetection cannot define the chip model. It's circular: the chip model cannot be
>>> autodetected because a chip model is needed to access the register used during
>>> autodetection.
>>>
>>> Which leads me back to what I said two paragraphs up:
>>>> The device tree only distinguishes a "dlg,da9063", there is no AD type in the DT schema.
>>>> There is no datasheet listing AD registers supported by Dialog, only BB.
>>>
>>> This is not how it is done in the DA9062 and DA9061 driver: the variant code is only
>>> used to print the information to the console during start-up and it is the DT that defines
>>> the chip model based upon "dlg,da9062" or "dlg,da9061".
>>
>> So the AD was broken since forever and noone noticed ? :)
>
> Not quite.
> The AD support is working, but the driver doesn't work like everybody
> expects because it uses the BB chip model. But it does work because the chip
> model for BB is valid for AD; in this case BB represents a superset of AD
> registers (and any mismatches are never accessed or mean anything in AD).
>
>> Do you have an AD hardware and can you fix it ?
>
> Part of my work is to support the community and I think this is fixable.
>
> But all of this shouldn't affect your DA9063L submission should it?
I think there might be conflict between those patchsets, so let me send
out a V5 so you can play around with the AD and fix that too.
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-06 9:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-02 10:11 [PATCH v3 01/10] mfd: da9063: Fix failpath in core Marek Vasut
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 02/10] mfd: da9063: Use REGMAP_IRQ_REG Marek Vasut
2018-06-04 7:17 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-06-04 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-04 16:23 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 7:09 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-05 7:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-06-05 8:16 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-05 19:48 ` Steve Twiss
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 03/10] mfd: da9063: Rename PMIC_DA9063 to PMIC_CHIP_ID_DA9063 Marek Vasut
2018-06-04 12:26 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-04 18:31 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 7:05 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-05 17:16 ` Steve Twiss
2018-06-05 17:20 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 19:49 ` Steve Twiss
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 04/10] mfd: da9063: Replace model with type Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 7:21 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 05/10] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L type Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 7:22 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-05 19:50 ` Steve Twiss
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 06/10] mfd: da9063: Add custom regmap for DA9063L Marek Vasut
2018-06-04 7:39 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-06-04 16:25 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 20:17 ` Steve Twiss
2018-06-05 23:02 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-06 9:47 ` Steve Twiss
2018-06-06 9:50 ` Marek Vasut [this message]
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 07/10] mfd: da9063: Add custom IRQ map " Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 7:47 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-05 7:54 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-06-05 8:24 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-05 19:52 ` Steve Twiss
2018-06-05 22:58 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 08/10] mfd: da9063: Register RTC only on DA9063L Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 7:53 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-05 9:29 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-06 6:16 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-06 9:17 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-07 5:04 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-07 10:57 ` Marek Vasut
2018-06-07 13:24 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 09/10] mfd: da9063: Handle less LDOs " Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 8:18 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-02 10:11 ` [PATCH v3 10/10] mfd: da9063: Add DA9063L support Marek Vasut
2018-06-05 8:18 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-05 19:47 ` Steve Twiss
2018-06-04 7:16 ` [PATCH v3 01/10] mfd: da9063: Fix failpath in core Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-06-04 8:28 ` Vaishali Thakkar
2018-06-04 12:24 ` Lee Jones
2018-06-04 13:08 ` Marek Vasut
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3a843a44-7f5a-e8c6-4de9-7e6682a07e35@gmail.com \
--to=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=Support.Opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com \
--cc=stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).