Re: [PATCH 1/3] mfd: tps65090: Allow charger module to be used when no irq

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

> >> >> On the ARM Chromebook tps65090 has two masters: the AP (the main
> >> >> processor running linux) and the EC (the embedded controller).  The AP
> >> >> is allowed to mess with FETs but the EC is in charge of charge control.
> >> >>
> >> >> The tps65090 interupt line is routed to both the AP and the EC, which
> >> >> can cause quite a headache.  Having two people adjusting masks and
> >> >> acking interrupts is a recipe for disaster.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the shipping kernel we had a hack to have the AP pay attention to
> >> >> the IRQ but not to ack it.  It also wasn't supposed to configure the
> >> >> IRQ in any way.  That hack allowed us to detect when the device was
> >> >> charging without messing with the EC's state.
> >> >>
> >> >> The current tps65090 infrastructure makes the above difficult, and it
> >> >> was a bit of a hack to begin with.  Rather than uglify the driver to
> >> >> support it, just extend the driver's existing notion of "no irq" to
> >> >> the charger.  This makes the charger code poll every 2 seconds for AC
> >> >> detect, which is sufficient.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  drivers/mfd/tps65090.c           | 14 ++++++--
> >> >>  drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >> >>  2 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > For the MFD part:
> >> >   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> >> >
> >> > Anton,
> >> >   If you are okay with this patch I'd be happy to create an immutable
> >> > branch for you to pull from?
> >> >
> >> > Doug,
> >> >   What is the relationship (dependencies) between this and the other
> >> > patches in the set?
> >>
> >> This patch can be applied irrespective of other others in the series.
> >
> > What about the files in the patch? Could you make two separate patches
> > from this one patch and it would still compile okay? I'm _guessing_
> > the answer is yes?
> 
> Yes, they'll compile and even boot on their own.  I just tested it.
> 
> If I put only the MFD part in, then at boot I see:
>   tps65090-charger tps65090-charger: Unable to get charger irq = -6
> ...but otherwise the system functions.
> 
> If I put only the charger part in, then at boot:
>   tps65090-charger tps65090-charger: Unable to register irq 1 err -22
>   tps65090-charger: probe of tps65090-charger failed with error -22
> 
> ...so you need both patches in order to make things function, but they
> can be applied separately.  I'll assume it will make your life easier
> if I split this into two patches so I'll do that.

Yes please.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog