Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: add support for Socionext SynQuacer I2C controller
From: Andy Shevchenko <hidden>
Date: 2018-02-20 19:39:16
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-i2c, lkml
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Ard Biesheuvel [off-list ref] wrote:
On 20 February 2018 at 14:02, Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Ard Biesheuvel [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */Shouldn't be // ?
IIUC, this applies to .h files only, and /* */ is preferred for .c files.
Other way around. Documentation/process/license-rules.rst
quoted
quoted
+#define WAIT_PCLK(n, rate) ndelay((((1000000000 + (rate) - 1) / \ + (rate) + n - 1) / n) + 10)This split makes it harder to catch the calculus. Also, you can use DIV_ROUND_UP(), though it longer, but adds a bit of clarity to the calculus.
Yeah. This was present in the original code, and I tried to avoid touching it :-)
Yeah, but below there are several instances with DIV_ROUND_UP().
quoted
quoted
+static void synquacer_i2c_stop(struct synquacer_i2c *i2c, int ret) +{ + dev_dbg(i2c->dev, "STOP\n");Hmm... Can't use FTRACE ?
What do you mean?
The message kinda useless, esp. if you can enable functional tracing. I saw a lot of debugging messages in the code, perhaps it makes sense at some point to make some trace points in I2C core and leave only HW related here.
quoted
quoted
+ if (dev_of_node(&pdev->dev)) { + i2c->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "pclk"); + if (IS_ERR(i2c->clk)) { + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "cannot get clock\n"); + return PTR_ERR(i2c->clk); + } + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "clock source %p\n", i2c->clk); + + i2c->clkrate = clk_get_rate(i2c->clk); + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "clock rate %d\n", i2c->clkrate); + clk_prepare_enable(i2c->clk); + } else {quoted
+ ret = device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev, + "socionext,pclk-rate", + &i2c->clkrate);I suppose for ACPI we just register a fixed rate clock and use it in the driver in the same way as in OF case. I guess at some point we even can provide a generic clock provider for ACPI based on rate property.
Is there a question here? Do you want me to change anything?
Is it opener for discussion. At least in the drivers we have done for x86 we do the way I described. See, for example, drivers/mfd/intel-lpss.c -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko