Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] power: supply: max17040: Config alert SOC low level threshold from FDT

[Matheus Castello <matheus@castello.eng.br>]

Em 11/1/19 1:52 PM, Matheus Castello escreveu:
> 
> 
> Em 11/1/19 12:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski escreveu:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:41:33PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote:
>>> For configuration of fuel gauge alert for a low level state of charge
>>> interrupt we add a function to config level threshold and a device tree
>>> binding property to set it in flatned device tree node.
>>>
>>> Now we can use "maxim,alert-low-soc-level" property with the values from
>>> 1% up to 32% to configure alert interrupt threshold.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@castello.eng.br>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>   1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c 
>>> b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
>>> index 75459f76d02c..802575342c72 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
>>> @@ -29,6 +29,9 @@
>>>   #define MAX17040_DELAY        1000
>>>   #define MAX17040_BATTERY_FULL    95
>>>
>>> +#define MAX17040_ATHD_MASK        0xFFC0
>>> +#define MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP    4
>>> +
>>>   struct max17040_chip {
>>>       struct i2c_client        *client;
>>>       struct delayed_work        work;
>>> @@ -43,6 +46,8 @@ struct max17040_chip {
>>>       int soc;
>>>       /* State Of Charge */
>>>       int status;
>>> +    /* Low alert threshold from 32% to 1% of the State of Charge */
>>> +    u32 low_soc_alert_threshold;
>>>   };
>>>
>>>   static int max17040_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
>>> @@ -99,6 +104,22 @@ static void max17040_reset(struct i2c_client 
>>> *client)
>>>       max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_CMD, 0x0054);
>>>   }
>>>
>>> +static int max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(struct i2c_client 
>>> *client,
>>> +    u32 level)
>>> +{
>>> +    int ret;
>>> +    u16 data;
>>> +
>>> +    level = 32 - level;
>>> +    data = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP);
>>> +    /* clear the alrt bit and set LSb 5 bits */
>>> +    data &= MAX17040_ATHD_MASK;
>>> +    data |= level;
>>> +    ret = max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP, data);
>>> +
>>> +    return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   static void max17040_get_vcell(struct i2c_client *client)
>>>   {
>>>       struct max17040_chip *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>>> @@ -115,7 +136,6 @@ static void max17040_get_soc(struct i2c_client 
>>> *client)
>>>       u16 soc;
>>>
>>>       soc = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_SOC);
>>> -
>>>       chip->soc = (soc >> 8);
>>>   }
>>>
>>> @@ -161,6 +181,24 @@ static void max17040_get_status(struct 
>>> i2c_client *client)
>>>           chip->status = POWER_SUPPLY_STATUS_FULL;
>>>   }
>>>
>>> +static int max17040_get_of_data(struct max17040_chip *chip)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct device *dev = &chip->client->dev;
>>> +    struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>>> +    int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +    if (of_property_read_u32(np, "maxim,alert-low-soc-level",
>>> +            &chip->low_soc_alert_threshold)) {
>>
>> Please align the line break with line above. checkpatch --strict might
>> give you hints about this.
>> >> +        chip->low_soc_alert_threshold = 
>> MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP;
>>> +    /* check if low_soc_alert_threshold is between 1% and 32% */
>>
>> The comment looks misleading here, like it belongs to previous block.
>> Maybe put it inside else if {} block?
>>
>>> +    } else if (chip->low_soc_alert_threshold <= 0 ||
>>> +            chip->low_soc_alert_threshold >= 33){
>>
>> Missing space before {.
>>
>>> +        ret = -EINVAL;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   static void max17040_check_changes(struct i2c_client *client)
>>>   {
>>>       max17040_get_vcell(client);
>>> @@ -192,6 +230,10 @@ static irqreturn_t max17040_thread_handler(int 
>>> id, void *dev)
>>>       /* send uevent */
>>>       power_supply_changed(chip->battery);
>>>
>>> +    /* reset alert bit */
>>> +    max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
>>> +        chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);
>>
>> Unless the continuation exceeds 80 character limit, please align it with
>> previous line.
>>
>>> +
>>>       return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>>   }
>>>
>>> @@ -216,6 +258,7 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>>       struct i2c_adapter *adapter = client->adapter;
>>>       struct power_supply_config psy_cfg = {};
>>>       struct max17040_chip *chip;
>>> +    int ret;
>>>
>>>       if (!i2c_check_functionality(adapter, I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE))
>>>           return -EIO;
>>> @@ -226,6 +269,12 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client 
>>> *client,
>>>
>>>       chip->client = client;
>>>       chip->pdata = client->dev.platform_data;
>>> +    ret = max17040_get_of_data(chip);
>>> +    if (ret) {
>>> +        dev_err(&client->dev,
>>> +            "failed: low SOC alert OF data out of bounds\n");
>>> +        return ret;
>>> +    }
>>>
>>>       i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
>>>       psy_cfg.drv_data = chip;
>>> @@ -242,20 +291,31 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client 
>>> *client,
>>>
>>>       /* check interrupt */
>>>       if (client->irq) {
>>> -        int ret;
>>> -        unsigned int flags;
>>> -
>>> -        dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
>>> -        flags = IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_ONESHOT;
>>> -        ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq, 
>>> NULL,
>>> -                        max17040_thread_handler, flags,
>>> -                        chip->battery->desc->name,
>>> -                        chip);
>>> -
>>> -        if (ret) {
>>> -            client->irq = 0;
>>> +        if (of_device_is_compatible(client->dev.of_node,
>>> +            "maxim,max77836-battery")) {
>>
>> Alignment.
>>
>>> +            ret = max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
>>> +                chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);
>>
>> Ditto.
>>

I am working to fix the alignments issues using the checkpath strict and 
I have a doubt. Here for example if I fix the check "Alignment should 
match open parenthesis" it will pass the 80 characters limit and will 
show me a warning.

>>> +            if (ret) {
>>> +                dev_err(&client->dev,
>>> +                    "Failed to set low SOC alert: err %d\n",
>>> +                    ret);
>>> +                return ret;
>>> +            }
>>> +
>>> +            dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
>>> +            ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev,
>>> +                client->irq, NULL, max17040_thread_handler,
>>> +                (client->flags | IRQF_ONESHOT),
>>
>> This looks unrelated. Befor ethis were IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING |
>> IRQF_ONESHOT, now you use client->flags. There is no reason why this
>> commit should change >
> 
> I am using client->flags here to not overwrite the flag passed in device 
> tree. Let me know what you think about it: if I should leave it as in 
> the previous commit, or should I modify the previous commit too.
> 
>>> +                chip->battery->desc->name, chip);
>>
>> This breaks alignment which was here before.
>>

The same here.
How to proceed in this case?

Best Regards,
Matheus Castello

>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>
> 
> Thanks for the review i will work on it.
> 
>>> +
>>> +            if (ret) {
>>> +                client->irq = 0;
>>> +                dev_warn(&client->dev,
>>> +                    "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
>>> +            }
>>> +        } else {
>>>               dev_warn(&client->dev,
>>> -                "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
>>> +                "Device not compatible for IRQ");
>>>           }
>>>       }
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 2.24.0.rc2
>>>