Re: Fwd: PCF8583 not detected on RiscPC

[Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:40:00AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:22:17 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:52:05AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Russell,
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:28:29 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > So, really, I'm not listening to NACKs from anyone for this.  The only
> > > > thing I'll listen to is something _constructive_ to make it work again.
> > > > I'm sure Andrew Morton will back me up on this.
> > > 
> > > ... and now you say we should fix it in the day and then threaten us?
> > > Come on.
> > 
> > I'm serious.  It's a regression, it needs fixing.
> > 
> > > > The problem is that this *is* a regression, and therefore must be fixed
> > > > in 2.6.29-rc.  As I see it, the only sane way to do that is to revert
> > > > the conversion until a proper fix can be done.
> > > 
> > > You can't claim it is a regression that must be fixed in 2.6.29,
> > > because it is already broken in 2.6.28, and even 2.6.27, and nobody
> > > complained.
> > 
> > Sorry, our definitions of what's a regression are different, and you are
> > wrong.  As I've already said to you, it worked in 2.6.25-rc and it worked
> > last time I tested which was a 2.6.27-rc kernel.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong but at least I am polite.
> 
> And I pretty much doubt it worked with a 2.6.27-rc kernel, given that
> the patch which broke it went into 2.6.27-rc1. So you are just as wrong
> as I am.
> 
> > If every single kernel has to be tested on every single machine to find
> > "regressions" in your terminology, that's all I'd be doing.  Get real.
> > It's not practical to do that.
> > 
> > So, yes, I'm going to continue claiming that this is a regression and
> > needs to be fixed.
> > 
> > > > So, please provide constructive suggestions on how to add boardinfo to
> > > > this in a sane way, or we revert PCF8583 back to something which works.
> > > 
> > > Alessandro nicely proposed to solve your problem the right way if you
> > > provided the required technical information, which, as far as I can
> > > see, you didn't. I asked for hardware details and you didn't provide
> > > them either.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, what hardware details are you wanting that I didn't give.
> > I've said it's the PCF8583 driver.  I've said that the bus driver is
> > i2c-acorn.c, even giving its location in the kernel tree.
> > 
> > It's a bit banged I2C bus.  It's on the main board.  It's connected to
> > expansion cards.  It uses 5V signalling with pull up resistors.
> > 
> > I don't think I've missed anything out.
> > 
> > > So let me ask more precise questions, and hopefully we will get
> > > somewhere.
> > > 
> > > 1* How many different system types is i2c-acorn used on?
> > 
> > It used to be used on four, two of which have been long since removed,
> > and one was removed in the last merge window.  So it's now only used on
> > one platform.
> > 
> > > 2* Do all these systems have a PCF8583 RTC chip?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > 3* At which address does the PCF8583 chip live on these systems? I
> > >    guess 0x50.
> > 
> > Looking back in the history of the driver, yes, it's 0x50.
> > 
> > > 4* Is there any acorn-specific piece of code which is run when the
> > >    Linux kernel boots?
> > 
> > For the riscpc, arch/arm/mach-rpc
> > 
> > > Depending on the answer to these questions, I can think of 3 different
> > > nice ways to fix the regression. Reverting
> > > 02bb584f3b1cfc8188522a4d2c8881b65073a4f1 is not one of them,
> > 
> > Well, I've tried it, and unfortunately it doesn't work.  The result is
> > that with the board_info in place, the i2c-acorn bus seems to no longer
> > be registered as bus 0, but becomes bus 1.
> 
> The following patch should fix it:
> 
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-acorn.c |    3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- linux-2.6.29-rc5.orig/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-acorn.c	2009-02-21 14:33:57.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.29-rc5/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-acorn.c	2009-02-22 11:33:10.000000000 +0100
> @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ static struct i2c_algo_bit_data ioc_data
>  };
>  
>  static struct i2c_adapter ioc_ops = {
> +	.nr			= 0,
>  	.algo_data		= &ioc_data,
>  };
>  
> @@ -90,7 +91,7 @@ static int __init i2c_ioc_init(void)
>  {
>  	force_ones = FORCE_ONES | SCL | SDA;
>  
> -	return i2c_bit_add_bus(&ioc_ops);
> +	return i2c_bit_add_numbered_bus(&ioc_ops);
>  }
>  
>  module_init(i2c_ioc_init);
> 

Thanks, that does fix it.  Here's the addition of the boardinfo.  I don't
have any issue with combining this with your patch above.  Please apply
for the current -rc series.

Subject: [ARM] Add i2c_board_info for RiscPC PCF8583

Add the necessary i2c_board_info structure to fix the lack of PCF8583
RTC on RiscPC.

Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

---
 arch/arm/mach-rpc/riscpc.c |    6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rpc/riscpc.c b/arch/arm/mach-rpc/riscpc.c
index e88d417..c7fc01e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-rpc/riscpc.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-rpc/riscpc.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
 #include <linux/serial_8250.h>
 #include <linux/ata_platform.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/i2c.h>
 
 #include <asm/elf.h>
 #include <asm/mach-types.h>
@@ -201,8 +202,13 @@ static struct platform_device *devs[] __initdata = {
 	&pata_device,
 };
 
+static struct i2c_board_info i2c_rtc = {
+	I2C_BOARD_INFO("pcf8583", 0x50)
+};
+
 static int __init rpc_init(void)
 {
+	i2c_register_board_info(0, &i2c_rtc, 1);
 	return platform_add_devices(devs, ARRAY_SIZE(devs));
 }