diff mbox

[v1,1/3] regulator: act8865: Add support to turn off all outputs

Message ID 1411834906-9533-1-git-send-email-romain.perier@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Romain Perier Sept. 27, 2014, 4:21 p.m. UTC
When the property "active-semi,system-power-controller" is found in the
devicetree, the function pm_power_off is defined. This function sends the
rights bit fields to the global off control register. shutdown/poweroff
commands are now supported for hardware components which use these PMU.

Signed-off-by: Romain Perier <romain.perier@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)

Comments

Mark Brown Sept. 28, 2014, 10:33 a.m. UTC | #1
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 04:21:44PM +0000, Romain Perier wrote:
> When the property "active-semi,system-power-controller" is found in the
> devicetree, the function pm_power_off is defined. This function sends the
> rights bit fields to the global off control register. shutdown/poweroff
> commands are now supported for hardware components which use these PMU.

We really need to come up with a standard property for this and document
it rather than continuing to add individual device specific properties
all doing the same thing, and probably also some helper code and/or a
standard operation for this - there's a lot of drivers implementing the
same pattern here.

> +	if (dev->of_node &&
> +	    of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node,
> +				  "active-semi,system-power-controller")) {
> +		act8865_i2c_client = client;

Indentation seems messed up here - tabs vs spaces?
Romain Perier Sept. 28, 2014, noon UTC | #2
Hi Mark,


2014-09-28 12:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 04:21:44PM +0000, Romain Perier wrote:
>> When the property "active-semi,system-power-controller" is found in the
>> devicetree, the function pm_power_off is defined. This function sends the
>> rights bit fields to the global off control register. shutdown/poweroff
>> commands are now supported for hardware components which use these PMU.
>
> We really need to come up with a standard property for this and document
> it rather than continuing to add individual device specific properties
> all doing the same thing, and probably also some helper code and/or a
> standard operation for this - there's a lot of drivers implementing the
> same pattern here.

I completly agree about adding a unified and generic property for that purpose.
I already proposed something for that on devicetree ML, see the thread
"Proposal: generic property for system-power-controller".
Unfortunately I did not get replies :) .


>
>> +     if (dev->of_node &&
>> +         of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node,
>> +                               "active-semi,system-power-controller")) {
>> +             act8865_i2c_client = client;
>
> Indentation seems messed up here - tabs vs spaces?

Yes, I really don't understand where the problem is. I use good emacs
settings to be compatible with kernel coding style and git diff does
not show me indent/spaces problems :/ .
Sorry because this is a very boring issue when reviewing patches... I
will investigate ^^

Romain
Mark Brown Sept. 28, 2014, 12:25 p.m. UTC | #3
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 02:00:54PM +0200, PERIER Romain wrote:
> 2014-09-28 12:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>:

> > We really need to come up with a standard property for this and document
> > it rather than continuing to add individual device specific properties
> > all doing the same thing, and probably also some helper code and/or a
> > standard operation for this - there's a lot of drivers implementing the
> > same pattern here.

> I completly agree about adding a unified and generic property for that purpose.
> I already proposed something for that on devicetree ML, see the thread
> "Proposal: generic property for system-power-controller".
> Unfortunately I did not get replies :) .

Did you CC relevant maintainers and send a patch?
Romain Perier Sept. 28, 2014, 1:25 p.m. UTC | #4
2014-09-28 14:25 GMT+02:00 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 02:00:54PM +0200, PERIER Romain wrote:
>> 2014-09-28 12:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>:
>
>> > We really need to come up with a standard property for this and document
>> > it rather than continuing to add individual device specific properties
>> > all doing the same thing, and probably also some helper code and/or a
>> > standard operation for this - there's a lot of drivers implementing the
>> > same pattern here.
>
>> I completly agree about adding a unified and generic property for that purpose.
>> I already proposed something for that on devicetree ML, see the thread
>> "Proposal: generic property for system-power-controller".
>> Unfortunately I did not get replies :) .
>
> Did you CC relevant maintainers and send a patch?

No I did not propose patches as I was an open discussion. Perhaps I
might propose something as part of my contribution for act8865... (at
least for the property)
Romain Perier Sept. 28, 2014, 3:04 p.m. UTC | #5
Well, I will think about it and I will propose a separated patch with
a generic property and helper functions.

2014-09-28 15:25 GMT+02:00 PERIER Romain <romain.perier@gmail.com>:
> 2014-09-28 14:25 GMT+02:00 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>:
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 02:00:54PM +0200, PERIER Romain wrote:
>>> 2014-09-28 12:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>:
>>
>>> > We really need to come up with a standard property for this and document
>>> > it rather than continuing to add individual device specific properties
>>> > all doing the same thing, and probably also some helper code and/or a
>>> > standard operation for this - there's a lot of drivers implementing the
>>> > same pattern here.
>>
>>> I completly agree about adding a unified and generic property for that purpose.
>>> I already proposed something for that on devicetree ML, see the thread
>>> "Proposal: generic property for system-power-controller".
>>> Unfortunately I did not get replies :) .
>>
>> Did you CC relevant maintainers and send a patch?
>
> No I did not propose patches as I was an open discussion. Perhaps I
> might propose something as part of my contribution for act8865... (at
> least for the property)
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c
index afd06f9..6cf202d 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c
@@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ 
 #define	ACT8846_REG12_VSET	0xa0
 #define	ACT8846_REG12_CTRL	0xa1
 #define	ACT8846_REG13_CTRL	0xb1
+#define	ACT8846_GLB_OFF_CTRL	0xc3
+#define	ACT8846_OFF_SYSMASK	0x18
 
 /*
  * ACT8865 Global Register Map.
@@ -84,6 +86,7 @@ 
 #define	ACT8865_LDO3_CTRL	0x61
 #define	ACT8865_LDO4_VSET	0x64
 #define	ACT8865_LDO4_CTRL	0x65
+#define	ACT8865_MSTROFF		0x20
 
 /*
  * Field Definitions.
@@ -98,6 +101,8 @@ 
 
 struct act8865 {
 	struct regmap *regmap;
+	int off_reg;
+	int off_mask;
 };
 
 static const struct regmap_config act8865_regmap_config = {
@@ -275,6 +280,16 @@  static struct regulator_init_data
 	return NULL;
 }
 
+static struct i2c_client *act8865_i2c_client;
+static void act8865_power_off(void)
+{
+	struct act8865 *act8865;
+
+	act8865 = i2c_get_clientdata(act8865_i2c_client);
+	regmap_write(act8865->regmap, act8865->off_reg, act8865->off_mask);
+	while (1);
+}
+
 static int act8865_pmic_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 			      const struct i2c_device_id *i2c_id)
 {
@@ -285,6 +300,7 @@  static int act8865_pmic_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 	int i, ret, num_regulators;
 	struct act8865 *act8865;
 	unsigned long type;
+	int off_reg, off_mask;
 
 	pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev);
 
@@ -304,10 +320,14 @@  static int act8865_pmic_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 	case ACT8846:
 		regulators = act8846_regulators;
 		num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(act8846_regulators);
+		off_reg = ACT8846_GLB_OFF_CTRL;
+		off_mask = ACT8846_OFF_SYSMASK;
 		break;
 	case ACT8865:
 		regulators = act8865_regulators;
 		num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(act8865_regulators);
+		off_reg = ACT8865_SYS_CTRL;
+		off_mask = ACT8865_MSTROFF;
 		break;
 	default:
 		dev_err(dev, "invalid device id %lu\n", type);
@@ -345,6 +365,15 @@  static int act8865_pmic_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
 		return ret;
 	}
 
+	if (dev->of_node &&
+	    of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node,
+				  "active-semi,system-power-controller")) {
+		act8865_i2c_client = client;
+		act8865->off_reg = off_reg;
+		act8865->off_mask = off_mask;
+		pm_power_off = act8865_power_off;
+	}
+
 	/* Finally register devices */
 	for (i = 0; i < num_regulators; i++) {
 		const struct regulator_desc *desc = &regulators[i];