lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] mfd: tps65090: Allow charger module to be used when no irq
From
Lee,

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
>> >> On the ARM Chromebook tps65090 has two masters: the AP (the main
>> >> processor running linux) and the EC (the embedded controller). The AP
>> >> is allowed to mess with FETs but the EC is in charge of charge control.
>> >>
>> >> The tps65090 interupt line is routed to both the AP and the EC, which
>> >> can cause quite a headache. Having two people adjusting masks and
>> >> acking interrupts is a recipe for disaster.
>> >>
>> >> In the shipping kernel we had a hack to have the AP pay attention to
>> >> the IRQ but not to ack it. It also wasn't supposed to configure the
>> >> IRQ in any way. That hack allowed us to detect when the device was
>> >> charging without messing with the EC's state.
>> >>
>> >> The current tps65090 infrastructure makes the above difficult, and it
>> >> was a bit of a hack to begin with. Rather than uglify the driver to
>> >> support it, just extend the driver's existing notion of "no irq" to
>> >> the charger. This makes the charger code poll every 2 seconds for AC
>> >> detect, which is sufficient.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>> >> ---
>> >> drivers/mfd/tps65090.c | 14 ++++++--
>> >> drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> >> 2 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > For the MFD part:
>> > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
>> >
>> > Anton,
>> > If you are okay with this patch I'd be happy to create an immutable
>> > branch for you to pull from?
>> >
>> > Doug,
>> > What is the relationship (dependencies) between this and the other
>> > patches in the set?
>>
>> This patch can be applied irrespective of other others in the series.
>
> What about the files in the patch? Could you make two separate patches
> from this one patch and it would still compile okay? I'm _guessing_
> the answer is yes?

Yes, they'll compile and even boot on their own. I just tested it.

If I put only the MFD part in, then at boot I see:
tps65090-charger tps65090-charger: Unable to get charger irq = -6
...but otherwise the system functions.

If I put only the charger part in, then at boot:
tps65090-charger tps65090-charger: Unable to register irq 1 err -22
tps65090-charger: probe of tps65090-charger failed with error -22

...so you need both patches in order to make things function, but they
can be applied separately. I'll assume it will make your life easier
if I split this into two patches so I'll do that.

-Doug


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-16 20:01    [W:0.067 / U:16.048 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site