[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/6] power: Explicitly select pmic device's bus
Heiko Schocher
hs at denx.de
Thu Oct 3 07:52:31 CEST 2013
Hello Lukasz,
Am 02.10.2013 17:11, schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
> Hi Leela,
>
>> The current pmic i2c code assumes the current i2c bus is
>> the same as the pmic device's bus. There is nothing ensuring
>> that to be true. Therefore, select the proper bus before performing
>> a transaction.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Durbin<adurbin at chromium.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass<sjg at chromium.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Leela Krishna Amudala<l.krishna at samsung.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson<dianders at google.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/power/power_i2c.c | 62
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 57
>> insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/power/power_i2c.c b/drivers/power/power_i2c.c
>> index 47c606f..c22e01f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/power/power_i2c.c
>> +++ b/drivers/power/power_i2c.c
>> @@ -16,9 +16,45 @@
>> #include<i2c.h>
>> #include<compiler.h>
>>
>> +static int pmic_select(struct pmic *p)
>> +{
>> + int ret, old_bus;
>> +
>> + old_bus = i2c_get_bus_num();
>> + if (old_bus != p->bus) {
>> + debug("%s: Select bus %d\n", __func__, p->bus);
>> + ret = i2c_set_bus_num(p->bus);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + debug("%s: Cannot select pmic %s, err %d\n",
>> + __func__, p->name, ret);
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return old_bus;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int pmic_deselect(int old_bus)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (old_bus != i2c_get_bus_num()) {
>> + ret = i2c_set_bus_num(old_bus);
>> + debug("%s: Select bus %d\n", __func__, old_bus);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + debug("%s: Cannot restore i2c bus, err %d\n",
>> + __func__, ret);
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> int pmic_reg_write(struct pmic *p, u32 reg, u32 val)
>> {
>> unsigned char buf[4] = { 0 };
>> + int ret, old_bus;
>>
>> if (check_reg(p, reg))
>> return -1;
>> @@ -52,23 +88,33 @@ int pmic_reg_write(struct pmic *p, u32 reg, u32
>> val) return -1;
>> }
>>
>> - if (i2c_write(pmic_i2c_addr, reg, 1, buf, pmic_i2c_tx_num))
>> + old_bus = pmic_select(p);
>> + if (old_bus< 0)
>> return -1;
>>
>> - return 0;
>> + ret = i2c_write(pmic_i2c_addr, reg, 1, buf, pmic_i2c_tx_num);
>
> I'm wondering if setting the bus before each, single i2c write (when we
> usually perform several writes to one device) will not be an overkill
> (we search the ll_entry_count linker list each time to find max i2c
> adapter names) ?
Yes, maybe we could optimze this in drivers/i2c/i2c_core.c. It should be
enough to detect the max adapter once ... but it is not a "search"...
ll_entry_count() calculates the number ...
Looking in i2c_set_bus_num(), I think it can be optimized ...
lets speaking code:
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c_core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c_core.c
index d1072e8..170423a 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c_core.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c_core.c
@@ -278,20 +278,22 @@ unsigned int i2c_get_bus_num(void)
*/
int i2c_set_bus_num(unsigned int bus)
{
- int max = ll_entry_count(struct i2c_adapter, i2c);
+ int max;
+
+ if ((bus == I2C_BUS) && (I2C_ADAP->init_done > 0))
+ return 0;
- if (I2C_ADAPTER(bus) >= max) {
- printf("Error, wrong i2c adapter %d max %d possible\n",
- I2C_ADAPTER(bus), max);
- return -2;
- }
#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_I2C_DIRECT_BUS
if (bus >= CONFIG_SYS_NUM_I2C_BUSES)
return -1;
#endif
- if ((bus == I2C_BUS) && (I2C_ADAP->init_done > 0))
- return 0;
+ max = ll_entry_count(struct i2c_adapter, i2c);
+ if (I2C_ADAPTER(bus) >= max) {
+ printf("Error, wrong i2c adapter %d max %d possible\n",
+ I2C_ADAPTER(bus), max);
+ return -2;
+ }
#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_I2C_DIRECT_BUS
i2c_mux_disconnet_all();
So, first check, if we are on the correct bus, and return immediately!
What do you think?
Beside of that, pmic_select() does the check, if we are on the correct
bus too, and calls i2c_set_bus_num() only, if not ... so this is here
no problem ... but exactly I want to get rid of this code as it is in
pmic_select() someday, when all i2c drivers converted to the new i2c
framework. i2c_set_bus_num() should go static then in drivers/i2c/i2c_core.c
and i2c_read/write/... become a new "int bus" parameter ... but this
will be a big api change ... but will prevent exactly such code
all over the u-boot code ...
bye,
Heiko
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list