[PATCH RESEND] i2c: Add support for device-tree based chip initialization
Mitch Bradley
wmb at firmworks.com
Tue Nov 27 09:58:38 EST 2012
On 11/26/2012 12:37 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 02:19 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:43:38AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On 11/25/2012 10:53 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> Some I2C devices are not or not correctly initialized by the firmware.
>>>> Configuration would be possible via platform data, but that would require
>>>> per-driver platform data and a lot of code, and changing it would not be
>>>> possible without re-compiling the kernel. It is more elegant to do it
>>>> generically via devicetree properties.
>>>>
>>>> Add a generic I2C devicetree property named "reg-init". This property provides
>>>> a sequence of device initialization commands to be executed prior to calling
>>>> the probe function for a given device.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net>
>>>> ---
>>>> Any comments / feedback ?
>>>
>>> This has been discussed before in terms of memory mapped registers. I
>>> think this is of questionable use of DT and could easily be abused. Not
>>
>> Isn't that true for pretty much everything ?
>>
>> Really, I don't think that "it can be abused" should be considered a valid
>> argument. It is almost as good (or bad) as "we have always done it that way"
>> or "this doesn't scale".
>
> DT is a description of the h/w. It is not a h/w configuration mechanism.
And yet, the document that defined the device tree is entitled "IEEE
Standard for Boot (Initialization, Configuration) Firmware".
Initialization and configuration was part of the problem set, and part
of the solution set, from the outset.
> Although, you do lots of h/w configuration based on the h/w description.
> That being said, you can find examples in bindings that are just
> configuration data so it's not a clear line.
>
> If we do want to support this, then there is no reason for it to be
> specific to i2c devices or ethernet phys. It was on the pinmux/pinctrl
> binding discussions the last time this came up IIRC. The first issue
> will be the need to specify register sizes. Then you get into needing
> masked writes. Then you need delays and polling reads of register
> values. Then the discussion dies when it starts to look like a scripting
> language and Forth is mentioned (happened just last week with runtime
> interpreted power sequences thread).
It would be nice if hardware were simple enough not to need the power of
a programming language to initialize it, or if hardware variants did not
proliferate to the point where building new kernels became unattractive.
The world doesn't appear to be going in that "nice" direction...
The longer that one resists doing the right thing, the more likely that
one ends up saddled with a bad half-solution that has to be extended
into a truly awful hodgepodge.
>
> Rob
>
>>> all systems use DT, so this needs to be solved without DT anyway.
>>>
>>> Do you have examples of drivers that would use this?
>>>
>> I would need it for MAX6697 (for which I submitted a driver a week or so ago),
>> and possibly for others. I didn't check further because I don't want to go along
>> on this road too far if the idea is rejected.
>>
>> I took the idea from Broadcom and Marvell PHY chip initialization, which uses
>> a similar approach, including the reg-init keyword. As far as I can see
>> both don't support platform data based initialization, so one question
>> to ask would be when it is mandatory to support platforma data based
>> initialization and when it isn't.
>>
>>> Can this be handled in userspace using the i2c device interface before
>>> loading the device's module?
>>>
>> Not in my use case.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Guenter
>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>>
>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt | 24 +++++++
>>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
>>>> index 2f5322b..33b694e 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt
>>>> @@ -2,6 +2,30 @@ This is a list of trivial i2c devices that have simple device tree
>>>> bindings, consisting only of a compatible field, an address and
>>>> possibly an interrupt line.
>>>>
>>>> +Device initialization is supported with an optional reg-init property.
>>>> +This property contains a sequence of commands to be written into the chip.
>>>> +Each command consists of four values: Register, command type, mask, and data.
>>>> + Register:
>>>> + Register or command address
>>>> + Command type:
>>>> + 0: SMBus write byte
>>>> + 1: SMBus write byte data
>>>> + 2: SMBus write word data
>>>> + Mask:
>>>> + If set, the register is read and masked with this value.
>>>> + Data:
>>>> + Data to be written (or with original data and mask if set)
>>>> +
>>>> +Example:
>>>> + max6696 at 1a {
>>>> + compatible = "maxim,max6696";
>>>> + reg = <0x1a>;
>>>> + reg-init = <
>>>> + 0x09 1 0x00 0x24
>>>> + 0x21 1 0x00 0x05
>>>> + >;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> If a device needs more specific bindings, such as properties to
>>>> describe some aspect of it, there needs to be a specific binding
>>>> document for it just like any other devices.
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>> index a7edf98..49f8b74 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
>>>> @@ -104,6 +104,69 @@ static int i2c_device_uevent(struct device *dev, struct kobj_uevent_env *env)
>>>> #define i2c_device_uevent NULL
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG */
>>>>
>>>> +static int i2c_dev_of_init(struct i2c_client *client, struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const u32 *reg_init;
>>>> + int rlen;
>>>> + int val;
>>>> + u32 reg, access, mask, data;
>>>> +
>>>> + reg_init = of_get_property(dev->of_node, "reg-init", &rlen);
>>>> + if (!reg_init)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!rlen || rlen % 4)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + while (rlen >= 4) {
>>>> + reg = reg_init[0];
>>>> + access = reg_init[1];
>>>> + mask = reg_init[2];
>>>> + data = reg_init[3];
>>>> +
>>>> + if (reg > 0xff)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (access) {
>>>> + default:
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + case 0:
>>>> + val = 0;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 1:
>>>> + val = mask ? i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, reg) : 0;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 2:
>>>> + val = mask ? i2c_smbus_read_word_data(client, reg) : 0;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (val < 0)
>>>> + return val;
>>>> +
>>>> + val &= mask;
>>>> + val |= data;
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (access) {
>>>> + default:
>>>> + case 0:
>>>> + val = i2c_smbus_write_byte(client, reg);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 1:
>>>> + val = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, reg, val);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 2:
>>>> + val = i2c_smbus_write_word_data(client, reg, val);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (val < 0)
>>>> + return val;
>>>> +
>>>> + reg_init += 4;
>>>> + rlen -= 4 * sizeof(u32);
>>>> + }
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev)
>>>> {
>>>> struct i2c_client *client = i2c_verify_client(dev);
>>>> @@ -122,7 +185,12 @@ static int i2c_device_probe(struct device *dev)
>>>> client->flags & I2C_CLIENT_WAKE);
>>>> dev_dbg(dev, "probe\n");
>>>>
>>>> + status = i2c_dev_of_init(client, dev);
>>>> + if (status)
>>>> + goto error;
>>>> +
>>>> status = driver->probe(client, i2c_match_id(driver->id_table, client));
>>>> +error:
>>>> if (status) {
>>>> client->driver = NULL;
>>>> i2c_set_clientdata(client, NULL);
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
>
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list