[PATCH v8 1/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: refactor to support new SPMI vibrator

Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay posted 3 patches 1 year, 10 months ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH v8 1/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: refactor to support new SPMI vibrator
Posted by Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay 1 year, 10 months ago
From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>

Currently, vibrator control register addresses are hard coded,
including the base address and offsets, it's not flexible to
support new SPMI vibrator module which is usually included in
different PMICs with different base address. Refactor it by using
the base address defined in devicetree.

Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
---
 drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c b/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
index 04cb87efd799..3b6a2e949f30 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/pm8xxx-vibrator.c
@@ -19,26 +19,26 @@
 #define MAX_FF_SPEED		0xff
 
 struct pm8xxx_regs {
-	unsigned int enable_addr;
+	unsigned int enable_offset;
 	unsigned int enable_mask;
 
-	unsigned int drv_addr;
+	unsigned int drv_offset;
 	unsigned int drv_mask;
 	unsigned int drv_shift;
 	unsigned int drv_en_manual_mask;
 };
 
 static const struct pm8xxx_regs pm8058_regs = {
-	.drv_addr = 0x4A,
+	.drv_offset = 0x4A,
 	.drv_mask = 0xf8,
 	.drv_shift = 3,
 	.drv_en_manual_mask = 0xfc,
 };
 
 static struct pm8xxx_regs pm8916_regs = {
-	.enable_addr = 0xc046,
+	.enable_offset = 0x46,
 	.enable_mask = BIT(7),
-	.drv_addr = 0xc041,
+	.drv_offset = 0x41,
 	.drv_mask = 0x1F,
 	.drv_shift = 0,
 	.drv_en_manual_mask = 0,
@@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ static struct pm8xxx_regs pm8916_regs = {
  * @work: work structure to set the vibration parameters
  * @regmap: regmap for register read/write
  * @regs: registers' info
+ * @enable_addr: vibrator enable register
+ * @drv_addr: vibrator drive strength register
  * @speed: speed of vibration set from userland
  * @active: state of vibrator
  * @level: level of vibration to set in the chip
@@ -60,6 +62,8 @@ struct pm8xxx_vib {
 	struct work_struct work;
 	struct regmap *regmap;
 	const struct pm8xxx_regs *regs;
+	unsigned int enable_addr;
+	unsigned int drv_addr;
 	int speed;
 	int level;
 	bool active;
@@ -82,14 +86,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_vib_set(struct pm8xxx_vib *vib, bool on)
 	else
 		val &= ~regs->drv_mask;
 
-	rc = regmap_write(vib->regmap, regs->drv_addr, val);
+	rc = regmap_write(vib->regmap, vib->drv_addr, val);
 	if (rc < 0)
 		return rc;
 
 	vib->reg_vib_drv = val;
 
 	if (regs->enable_mask)
-		rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, regs->enable_addr,
+		rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, vib->enable_addr,
 					regs->enable_mask, on ? ~0 : 0);
 
 	return rc;
@@ -102,11 +106,10 @@ static int pm8xxx_vib_set(struct pm8xxx_vib *vib, bool on)
 static void pm8xxx_work_handler(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 	struct pm8xxx_vib *vib = container_of(work, struct pm8xxx_vib, work);
-	const struct pm8xxx_regs *regs = vib->regs;
-	int rc;
 	unsigned int val;
+	int rc;
 
-	rc = regmap_read(vib->regmap, regs->drv_addr, &val);
+	rc = regmap_read(vib->regmap, vib->drv_addr, &val);
 	if (rc < 0)
 		return;
 
@@ -169,7 +172,7 @@ static int pm8xxx_vib_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	struct pm8xxx_vib *vib;
 	struct input_dev *input_dev;
 	int error;
-	unsigned int val;
+	unsigned int val, reg_base = 0;
 	const struct pm8xxx_regs *regs;
 
 	vib = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*vib), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -189,13 +192,24 @@ static int pm8xxx_vib_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	regs = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
 
+	if (regs->enable_offset != 0) {
+		error = fwnode_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.fwnode, "reg", &reg_base);
+		if (error < 0) {
+			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to read reg address, rc=%d\n", error);
+			return error;
+		}
+	}
+
+	vib->enable_addr = reg_base + regs->enable_offset;
+	vib->drv_addr = reg_base + regs->drv_offset;
+
 	/* operate in manual mode */
-	error = regmap_read(vib->regmap, regs->drv_addr, &val);
+	error = regmap_read(vib->regmap, vib->drv_addr, &val);
 	if (error < 0)
 		return error;
 
 	val &= regs->drv_en_manual_mask;
-	error = regmap_write(vib->regmap, regs->drv_addr, val);
+	error = regmap_write(vib->regmap, vib->drv_addr, val);
 	if (error < 0)
 		return error;
 

-- 
2.25.1
Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: refactor to support new SPMI vibrator
Posted by Konrad Dybcio 1 year, 10 months ago
On 1.04.2024 10:38 AM, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
> 
> Currently, vibrator control register addresses are hard coded,
> including the base address and offsets, it's not flexible to
> support new SPMI vibrator module which is usually included in
> different PMICs with different base address. Refactor it by using
> the base address defined in devicetree.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
> ---

[...]

>  	if (regs->enable_mask)
> -		rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, regs->enable_addr,
> +		rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, vib->enable_addr,
>  					regs->enable_mask, on ? ~0 : 0);

The idiomatic way across the kernel seems to be writing the mask value
instead of ~0 (which also saves like 2 cpu instructions)


Not sure about how ssbi addressing works, but except for that lgtm

Konrad
Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] input: pm8xxx-vibrator: refactor to support new SPMI vibrator
Posted by Fenglin Wu 1 year, 10 months ago

On 4/2/2024 11:21 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 1.04.2024 10:38 AM, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay wrote:
>> From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
>>
>> Currently, vibrator control register addresses are hard coded,
>> including the base address and offsets, it's not flexible to
>> support new SPMI vibrator module which is usually included in
>> different PMICs with different base address. Refactor it by using
>> the base address defined in devicetree.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
>> ---
> 
> [...]
> 
>>   	if (regs->enable_mask)
>> -		rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, regs->enable_addr,
>> +		rc = regmap_update_bits(vib->regmap, vib->enable_addr,
>>   					regs->enable_mask, on ? ~0 : 0);
> 
> The idiomatic way across the kernel seems to be writing the mask value
> instead of ~0 (which also saves like 2 cpu instructions)
> 
> 
> Not sure about how ssbi addressing works, but except for that lgtm
> 
Agree.
SSBI driver doesn't provide reg_update_bits function call so similar 
mathematics is done on the value before writing to the register,  I can 
update it to use enable_mask directly in next version.

> Konrad