Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] power: supply: max17040: Config alert SOC low level threshold from FDT

From: Matheus Castello
Date: Sat Nov 02 2019 - 14:35:24 EST



Em 11/1/19 1:52 PM, Matheus Castello escreveu:


Em 11/1/19 12:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski escreveu:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:41:33PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote:
For configuration of fuel gauge alert for a low level state of charge
interrupt we add a function to config level threshold and a device tree
binding property to set it in flatned device tree node.

Now we can use "maxim,alert-low-soc-level" property with the values from
1% up to 32% to configure alert interrupt threshold.

Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
index 75459f76d02c..802575342c72 100644
--- a/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
+++ b/drivers/power/supply/max17040_battery.c
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@
 #define MAX17040_DELAY 1000
 #define MAX17040_BATTERY_FULL 95

+#define MAX17040_ATHD_MASKÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0xFFC0
+#define MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UPÂÂÂ 4
+
 struct max17040_chip {
ÂÂÂÂÂ struct i2c_clientÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ *client;
ÂÂÂÂÂ struct delayed_workÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ work;
@@ -43,6 +46,8 @@ struct max17040_chip {
ÂÂÂÂÂ int soc;
ÂÂÂÂÂ /* State Of Charge */
ÂÂÂÂÂ int status;
+ÂÂÂ /* Low alert threshold from 32% to 1% of the State of Charge */
+ÂÂÂ u32 low_soc_alert_threshold;
 };

 static int max17040_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
@@ -99,6 +104,22 @@ static void max17040_reset(struct i2c_client *client)
ÂÂÂÂÂ max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_CMD, 0x0054);
 }

+static int max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(struct i2c_client *client,
+ÂÂÂ u32 level)
+{
+ÂÂÂ int ret;
+ÂÂÂ u16 data;
+
+ÂÂÂ level = 32 - level;
+ÂÂÂ data = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP);
+ÂÂÂ /* clear the alrt bit and set LSb 5 bits */
+ÂÂÂ data &= MAX17040_ATHD_MASK;
+ÂÂÂ data |= level;
+ÂÂÂ ret = max17040_write_reg(client, MAX17040_RCOMP, data);
+
+ÂÂÂ return ret;
+}
+
 static void max17040_get_vcell(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
ÂÂÂÂÂ struct max17040_chip *chip = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
@@ -115,7 +136,6 @@ static void max17040_get_soc(struct i2c_client *client)
ÂÂÂÂÂ u16 soc;

ÂÂÂÂÂ soc = max17040_read_reg(client, MAX17040_SOC);
-
ÂÂÂÂÂ chip->soc = (soc >> 8);
 }

@@ -161,6 +181,24 @@ static void max17040_get_status(struct i2c_client *client)
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ chip->status = POWER_SUPPLY_STATUS_FULL;
 }

+static int max17040_get_of_data(struct max17040_chip *chip)
+{
+ÂÂÂ struct device *dev = &chip->client->dev;
+ÂÂÂ struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
+ÂÂÂ int ret = 0;
+
+ÂÂÂ if (of_property_read_u32(np, "maxim,alert-low-soc-level",
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ &chip->low_soc_alert_threshold)) {

Please align the line break with line above. checkpatch --strict might
give you hints about this.
>> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ chip->low_soc_alert_threshold = MAX17040_ATHD_DEFAULT_POWER_UP;
+ÂÂÂ /* check if low_soc_alert_threshold is between 1% and 32% */

The comment looks misleading here, like it belongs to previous block.
Maybe put it inside else if {} block?

+ÂÂÂ } else if (chip->low_soc_alert_threshold <= 0 ||
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ chip->low_soc_alert_threshold >= 33){

Missing space before {.

+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ret = -EINVAL;
+ÂÂÂ }
+
+ÂÂÂ return ret;
+}
+
 static void max17040_check_changes(struct i2c_client *client)
 {
ÂÂÂÂÂ max17040_get_vcell(client);
@@ -192,6 +230,10 @@ static irqreturn_t max17040_thread_handler(int id, void *dev)
ÂÂÂÂÂ /* send uevent */
ÂÂÂÂÂ power_supply_changed(chip->battery);

+ÂÂÂ /* reset alert bit */
+ÂÂÂ max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);

Unless the continuation exceeds 80 character limit, please align it with
previous line.

+
ÂÂÂÂÂ return IRQ_HANDLED;
 }

@@ -216,6 +258,7 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
ÂÂÂÂÂ struct i2c_adapter *adapter = client->adapter;
ÂÂÂÂÂ struct power_supply_config psy_cfg = {};
ÂÂÂÂÂ struct max17040_chip *chip;
+ÂÂÂ int ret;

ÂÂÂÂÂ if (!i2c_check_functionality(adapter, I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE))
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return -EIO;
@@ -226,6 +269,12 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,

ÂÂÂÂÂ chip->client = client;
ÂÂÂÂÂ chip->pdata = client->dev.platform_data;
+ÂÂÂ ret = max17040_get_of_data(chip);
+ÂÂÂ if (ret) {
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dev_err(&client->dev,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "failed: low SOC alert OF data out of bounds\n");
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return ret;
+ÂÂÂ }

ÂÂÂÂÂ i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
ÂÂÂÂÂ psy_cfg.drv_data = chip;
@@ -242,20 +291,31 @@ static int max17040_probe(struct i2c_client *client,

ÂÂÂÂÂ /* check interrupt */
ÂÂÂÂÂ if (client->irq) {
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ int ret;
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ unsigned int flags;
-
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ flags = IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_ONESHOT;
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq, NULL,
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ max17040_thread_handler, flags,
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ chip->battery->desc->name,
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ chip);
-
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (ret) {
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ client->irq = 0;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (of_device_is_compatible(client->dev.of_node,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "maxim,max77836-battery")) {

Alignment.

+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ret = max17040_set_low_soc_threshold_alert(client,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ chip->low_soc_alert_threshold);

Ditto.


I am working to fix the alignments issues using the checkpath strict and I have a doubt. Here for example if I fix the check "Alignment should match open parenthesis" it will pass the 80 characters limit and will show me a warning.

+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (ret) {
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dev_err(&client->dev,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "Failed to set low SOC alert: err %d\n",
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ret);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return ret;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
+
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dev_info(&client->dev, "IRQ: enabled\n");
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ client->irq, NULL, max17040_thread_handler,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ (client->flags | IRQF_ONESHOT),

This looks unrelated. Befor ethis were IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING |
IRQF_ONESHOT, now you use client->flags. There is no reason why this
commit should change >

I am using client->flags here to not overwrite the flag passed in device tree. Let me know what you think about it: if I should leave it as in the previous commit, or should I modify the previous commit too.

+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ chip->battery->desc->name, chip);

This breaks alignment which was here before.


The same here.
How to proceed in this case?

Best Regards,
Matheus Castello

Best regards,
Krzysztof



Thanks for the review i will work on it.

+
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (ret) {
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ client->irq = 0;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dev_warn(&client->dev,
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ } else {
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ dev_warn(&client->dev,
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "Failed to get IRQ err %d\n", ret);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ "Device not compatible for IRQ");
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
ÂÂÂÂÂ }

--
2.24.0.rc2