lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/7] rtc: PCF50633 rtc driver
    On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:33:05 +0530
    Balaji Rao <balajirrao@openmoko.org> wrote:

    Hello,

    first review below. Please always add the rtc-linux mailing
    list in cc so that patchwork[1] can track your submission.

    [1]
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/rtc-linux/list/?state=*

    > Signed-off-by: Balaji Rao <balajirrao@openmoko.org>
    > Cc: Andy Green <andy@openmoko.com>
    > Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>
    > Cc: Paul Gortmaker <a.zummo@towertech.it>
    > ---
    > drivers/rtc/Kconfig | 6 +
    > drivers/rtc/Makefile | 1
    > drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf50633.c | 302 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > 3 files changed, 309 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
    > create mode 100644 drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf50633.c
    >
    > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
    > index 123092d..68e68d2 100644
    > --- a/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
    > +++ b/drivers/rtc/Kconfig
    > @@ -497,6 +497,12 @@ config RTC_DRV_WM8350
    > This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
    > will be called "rtc-wm8350".
    >
    > +config RTC_DRV_PCF50633
    > + depends on MFD_PCF50633
    > + tristate "NXP PCF50633 RTC"
    > + help
    > + If you say yes here you get support for the NXP PCF50633 RTC.
    > +
    > comment "on-CPU RTC drivers"
    >
    > config RTC_DRV_OMAP
    > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/Makefile b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
    > index 6e79c91..a717fec 100644
    > --- a/drivers/rtc/Makefile
    > +++ b/drivers/rtc/Makefile
    > @@ -70,3 +70,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_V3020) += rtc-v3020.o
    > obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_VR41XX) += rtc-vr41xx.o
    > obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_WM8350) += rtc-wm8350.o
    > obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_X1205) += rtc-x1205.o
    > +obj-$(CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PCF50633) += rtc-pcf50633.o
    > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf50633.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf50633.c
    > new file mode 100644
    > index 0000000..f314810
    > --- /dev/null
    > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pcf50633.c
    > @@ -0,0 +1,302 @@
    > +/* NXP PCF50633 RTC Driver
    > + *
    > + * (C) 2006-2008 by Openmoko, Inc.
    > + * Author: Balaji Rao <balajirrao@openmoko.org>
    > + * All rights reserved.
    > + *
    > + * Broken down from monstrous PCF50633 driver mainly by
    > + * Harald Welte, Andy Green and Werner Almesberger
    > + *
    > + * 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.
    > + *
    > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
    > + * GNU General Public License for more details.
    > + *
    > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    > + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
    > + * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston,
    > + * MA 02111-1307 USA

    I believe the shorter form of the GPL could be good as well.

    > + */
    > +
    > +#include <linux/rtc.h>
    > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
    > +#include <linux/bcd.h>
    > +
    > +#include <linux/mfd/pcf50633/core.h>

    > +#include <linux/mfd/pcf50633/rtc.h>

    this file should be included with the patch.


    > +
    > +enum pcf50633_time_indexes {
    > + PCF50633_TI_SEC,
    > + PCF50633_TI_MIN,
    > + PCF50633_TI_HOUR,
    > + PCF50633_TI_WKDAY,
    > + PCF50633_TI_DAY,
    > + PCF50633_TI_MONTH,
    > + PCF50633_TI_YEAR,
    > + PCF50633_TI_EXTENT /* always last */
    > +};
    > +
    > +
    > +struct pcf50633_time {
    > + u_int8_t time[PCF50633_TI_EXTENT];
    > +};
    > +
    > +static void pcf2rtc_time(struct rtc_time *rtc, struct pcf50633_time *pcf)
    > +{
    > + rtc->tm_sec = bcd2bin(pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_SEC]);
    > + rtc->tm_min = bcd2bin(pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_MIN]);
    > + rtc->tm_hour = bcd2bin(pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_HOUR]);
    > + rtc->tm_wday = bcd2bin(pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_WKDAY]);
    > + rtc->tm_mday = bcd2bin(pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_DAY]);
    > + rtc->tm_mon = bcd2bin(pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_MONTH]);
    > + rtc->tm_year = bcd2bin(pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_YEAR]) + 100;
    > +}
    > +
    > +static void rtc2pcf_time(struct pcf50633_time *pcf, struct rtc_time *rtc)
    > +{
    > + pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_SEC] = bin2bcd(rtc->tm_sec);
    > + pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_MIN] = bin2bcd(rtc->tm_min);
    > + pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_HOUR] = bin2bcd(rtc->tm_hour);
    > + pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_WKDAY] = bin2bcd(rtc->tm_wday);
    > + pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_DAY] = bin2bcd(rtc->tm_mday);
    > + pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_MONTH] = bin2bcd(rtc->tm_mon);
    > + pcf->time[PCF50633_TI_YEAR] = bin2bcd(rtc->tm_year - 100);

    you should add a check in the caller for tm_year < 100

    > +}
    > +
    > +static int
    > +pcf50633_rtc_ioctl(struct device *dev, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
    > +{
    > + struct pcf50633 *pcf;
    > +
    > + pcf = dev_get_drvdata(dev);

    this could be an one-liner (not mandatory).


    > + switch (cmd) {
    > + case RTC_AIE_OFF:
    > + pcf->rtc.alarm_enabled = 0;
    > + pcf50633_irq_mask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM);
    > + return 0;
    > + case RTC_AIE_ON:
    > + pcf->rtc.alarm_enabled = 1;
    > + pcf50633_irq_unmask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM);
    > + return 0;
    > + case RTC_PIE_OFF:
    > + pcf->rtc.second_enabled = 0;
    > + pcf50633_irq_mask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_SECOND);
    > + return 0;
    > + case RTC_PIE_ON:
    > + pcf->rtc.second_enabled = 1;
    > + pcf50633_irq_unmask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_SECOND);
    > + return 0;
    > + }

    we have recently improved the API for interrupts handling.
    the patch is now in -mm and you can check it here:
    http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/10039/

    that involves AIE and UIE.

    the API for PIE was always there and it's implemented by ops->irq_set_state
    and ops->irq_set_freq

    Is your PIE a real PIE or an UIE?


    > + return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
    > +}
    > +
    > +static int pcf50633_rtc_read_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
    > +{
    > + struct pcf50633 *pcf;
    > + struct pcf50633_time pcf_tm;
    > + int ret;
    > +
    > + pcf = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
    > +
    > + ret = pcf50633_read_block(pcf, PCF50633_REG_RTCSC,
    > + PCF50633_TI_EXTENT,
    > + &pcf_tm.time[0]);
    > + if (ret != PCF50633_TI_EXTENT)
    > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to read time\n");

    so return -EIO or something to that effect.

    > + dev_dbg(dev, "PCF_TIME: %02x.%02x.%02x %02x:%02x:%02x\n",
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_DAY],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_MONTH],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_YEAR],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_HOUR],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_MIN],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_SEC]);
    > +
    > + pcf2rtc_time(tm, &pcf_tm);
    > +
    > + dev_dbg(dev, "RTC_TIME: %u.%u.%u %u:%u:%u\n",
    > + tm->tm_mday, tm->tm_mon, tm->tm_year,
    > + tm->tm_hour, tm->tm_min, tm->tm_sec);
    > +
    > + return 0;

    nope. always return rtc_valid_tm(tm);

    > +}
    > +
    > +static int pcf50633_rtc_set_time(struct device *dev, struct rtc_time *tm)
    > +{
    > + struct pcf50633 *pcf;
    > + struct pcf50633_time pcf_tm;
    > + int second_masked, alarm_masked, ret = 0;
    > +
    > + pcf = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
    > +
    > + dev_dbg(dev, "RTC_TIME: %u.%u.%u %u:%u:%u\n",
    > + tm->tm_mday, tm->tm_mon, tm->tm_year,
    > + tm->tm_hour, tm->tm_min, tm->tm_sec);
    > +
    > + rtc2pcf_time(&pcf_tm, tm);
    > +
    > + dev_dbg(dev, "PCF_TIME: %02x.%02x.%02x %02x:%02x:%02x\n",
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_DAY],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_MONTH],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_YEAR],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_HOUR],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_MIN],
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_SEC]);
    > +
    > +
    > + second_masked = pcf50633_irq_mask_get(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_SECOND);
    > + alarm_masked = pcf50633_irq_mask_get(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM);
    > +
    > + if (!second_masked)
    > + pcf50633_irq_mask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_SECOND);
    > + if (!alarm_masked)
    > + pcf50633_irq_mask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM);
    > +
    > + ret = pcf50633_write_block(pcf, PCF50633_REG_RTCSC,
    > + PCF50633_TI_EXTENT,
    > + &pcf_tm.time[0]);
    > + if (ret)
    > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to set time %d\n", ret);
    > +
    > + if (!second_masked)
    > + pcf50633_irq_unmask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_SECOND);
    > + if (!alarm_masked)
    > + pcf50633_irq_unmask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM);
    > +
    > + return ret;

    is this ret an appropriate error code?

    > +}
    > +
    > +static int pcf50633_rtc_read_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
    > +{
    > + struct pcf50633 *pcf;
    > + struct pcf50633_time pcf_tm;
    > + int ret = 0;
    > +
    > + pcf = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
    > +
    > + alrm->enabled = pcf->rtc.alarm_enabled;
    > +
    > + ret = pcf50633_read_block(pcf, PCF50633_REG_RTCSCA,
    > + PCF50633_TI_EXTENT, &pcf_tm.time[0]);
    > +
    > + if (ret != PCF50633_TI_EXTENT)
    > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to read Alarm time %d\n", ret);
    > +
    > + pcf2rtc_time(&alrm->time, &pcf_tm);
    > +
    > + return ret;

    probably wrong, ret must be 0 on success.

    > +}
    > +
    > +static int pcf50633_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
    > +{
    > + struct pcf50633 *pcf;
    > + struct pcf50633_time pcf_tm;
    > + int alarm_masked, ret = 0;
    > +
    > + pcf = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
    > +
    > + rtc2pcf_time(&pcf_tm, &alrm->time);
    > +
    > + /* do like mktime does and ignore tm_wday */
    > + pcf_tm.time[PCF50633_TI_WKDAY] = 7;
    > +
    > + alarm_masked = pcf50633_irq_mask_get(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM);
    > +
    > + /* disable alarm interrupt */
    > + if (!alarm_masked)
    > + pcf50633_irq_mask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM);
    > +
    > + ret = pcf50633_write_block(pcf, PCF50633_REG_RTCSCA,
    > + PCF50633_TI_EXTENT, &pcf_tm.time[0]);
    > + if (ret)
    > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to write alarm time %d\n", ret);
    > +
    > + if (!alarm_masked)
    > + pcf50633_irq_unmask(pcf, PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM);
    > +
    > + return ret;

    ditto?

    > +}
    > +static struct rtc_class_ops pcf50633_rtc_ops = {
    > + .ioctl = pcf50633_rtc_ioctl,
    > + .read_time = pcf50633_rtc_read_time,
    > + .set_time = pcf50633_rtc_set_time,
    > + .read_alarm = pcf50633_rtc_read_alarm,
    > + .set_alarm = pcf50633_rtc_set_alarm,
    > +};
    > +
    > +static void pcf50633_rtc_irq(struct pcf50633 *pcf, int irq, void *unused)
    > +{
    > + switch (irq) {
    > + case PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM:
    > + rtc_update_irq(pcf->rtc.rtc_dev, 1, RTC_AF | RTC_IRQF);
    > + break;
    > + case PCF50633_IRQ_SECOND:
    > + rtc_update_irq(pcf->rtc.rtc_dev, 1, RTC_PF | RTC_IRQF);
    > + break;
    > + }
    > +}
    > +
    > +static int pcf50633_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
    > +{
    > + struct rtc_device *rtc;
    > + struct pcf50633 *pcf;
    > +
    > + rtc = rtc_device_register("pcf50633-rtc", &pdev->dev,
    > + &pcf50633_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
    > + if (IS_ERR(rtc))
    > + return -ENODEV;

    nope. if IS_ERR means that the rtc pointer has a valid error
    code that you should return to the caller.

    > + pcf = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);

    uh? where did you set up the pointer?


    > + /* Set up IRQ handlers */
    > + pcf->irq_handler[PCF50633_IRQ_ALARM].handler = pcf50633_rtc_irq;
    > + pcf->irq_handler[PCF50633_IRQ_SECOND].handler = pcf50633_rtc_irq;
    > +
    > + pcf->rtc.rtc_dev = rtc;

    ??

    > + return 0;
    > +}
    > +
    > +static int pcf50633_rtc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
    > +{
    > + struct pcf50633 *pcf;
    > +
    > + pcf = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
    > + rtc_device_unregister(pcf->rtc.rtc_dev);
    > +
    > + return 0;
    > +}
    > +
    > +
    > +static struct platform_driver pcf50633_rtc_driver = {
    > + .driver = {
    > + .name = "pcf50633-rtc",
    > + },
    > + .probe = pcf50633_rtc_probe,
    > + .remove = __devexit_p(pcf50633_rtc_remove),

    you marked __devexit_p but forgot to mark the function
    itself.

    > +};
    > +
    > +static int __init pcf50633_rtc_init(void)
    > +{
    > + return platform_driver_register(&pcf50633_rtc_driver);

    can't you use platform_driver_probe ?

    > +}
    > +module_init(pcf50633_rtc_init);
    > +
    > +static void __exit pcf50633_rtc_exit(void)
    > +{
    > + platform_driver_unregister(&pcf50633_rtc_driver);
    > +}
    > +module_exit(pcf50633_rtc_exit);
    > +
    > +
    > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PCF50633 RTC driver");
    > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Balaji Rao <balajirrao@openmoko.org>");
    > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
    > +
    >


    --

    Best regards,

    Alessandro Zummo,
    Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy

    http://www.towertech.it



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-12-14 20:33    [W:0.053 / U:59.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site