Re: [PATCH v2] rtc: abx80x: Add nvmem support

[Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>]

On 12/13/22 10:18, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 05/12/2022 10:19:18-0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> This adds support for the 256-byte internal RAM. There are two windows
>> which can be used to access this RAM: 64 bytes at 0x40 (the "standard"
>> address space) and 128 bytes at 0x80 (the "alternate" address space). We
>> use the standard address space because it is also accessible over SPI
>> (if such a port is ever done). We are limited to 32-byte reads for SMBus
>> compatibility, so there's no advantage to using the alternate address
>> space.
>> 
>> There are some reserved bits in the EXTRAM register, and the datasheet
>> doesn't say what to do with them. I've opted to skip a read/modify/write
>> and just write the whole thing. If this driver is ever converted to
>> regmap, this would be a good place to use regmap_update_bits.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>
>> ---
>> 
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Fix building on non-arm platforms
>> 
>>  drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 87 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c
>> index 9b0138d07232..e606bf126dc3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-abx80x.c
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>>   */
>>  
>>  #include <linux/bcd.h>
>> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
>>  #include <linux/i2c.h>
>>  #include <linux/module.h>
>>  #include <linux/of_device.h>
>> @@ -87,6 +88,16 @@
>>  #define ABX8XX_TRICKLE_STANDARD_DIODE	0x8
>>  #define ABX8XX_TRICKLE_SCHOTTKY_DIODE	0x4
>>  
>> +#define ABX8XX_REG_EXTRAM	0x3f
>> +#define ABX8XX_EXTRAM_XADS	GENMASK(1, 0)
>> +
>> +#define ABX8XX_SRAM_BASE	0x40
>> +#define ABX8XX_SRAM_WIN_SIZE	0x40
>> +#define ABX8XX_RAM_SIZE		256
>> +
>> +#define NVMEM_ADDR_LOWER	GENMASK(5, 0)
>> +#define NVMEM_ADDR_UPPER	GENMASK(7, 6)
>> +
>>  static u8 trickle_resistors[] = {0, 3, 6, 11};
>>  
>>  enum abx80x_chip {AB0801, AB0803, AB0804, AB0805,
>> @@ -673,6 +684,78 @@ static int abx80x_setup_watchdog(struct abx80x_priv *priv)
>>  }
>>  #endif
>>  
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NVMEM
>> +static int abx80x_nvmem_xfer(struct abx80x_priv *priv, unsigned int offset,
>> +			     void *val, size_t bytes, bool write)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	while (bytes) {
>> +		u8 extram, reg, len, lower, upper;
>> +
>> +		lower = FIELD_GET(NVMEM_ADDR_LOWER, offset);
>> +		upper = FIELD_GET(NVMEM_ADDR_UPPER, offset);
>> +		extram = FIELD_PREP(ABX8XX_EXTRAM_XADS, upper);
>> +		reg = ABX8XX_SRAM_BASE + lower;
>> +		len = min(lower + bytes, (size_t)ABX8XX_SRAM_WIN_SIZE) - lower;
>> +		len = min_t(u8, len, I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX);
>> +
>> +		ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(priv->client, ABX8XX_REG_EXTRAM,
>> +						extram);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>> +
>> +		if (write)
>> +			ret = i2c_smbus_write_i2c_block_data(priv->client, reg,
>> +							     len, val);
>> +		else
>> +			ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(priv->client, reg,
>> +							    len, val);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>> +
>> +		offset += len;
>> +		val += len;
>> +		bytes -= len;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int abx80x_nvmem_read(void *priv, unsigned int offset, void *val,
>> +			     size_t bytes)
>> +{
>> +	return abx80x_nvmem_xfer(priv, offset, val, bytes, false);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int abx80x_nvmem_write(void *priv, unsigned int offset, void *val,
>> +			      size_t bytes)
>> +{
>> +	return abx80x_nvmem_xfer(priv, offset, val, bytes, true);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int abx80x_setup_nvmem(struct abx80x_priv *priv)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = &priv->client->dev;
>> +	struct nvmem_config config = {
>> +		.dev = dev,
>> +		.type = NVMEM_TYPE_BATTERY_BACKED,
>> +		.reg_read = abx80x_nvmem_read,
>> +		.reg_write = abx80x_nvmem_write,
>> +		.size = ABX8XX_RAM_SIZE,
>> +		.priv = priv,
>> +	};
>> +
>> +	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(devm_nvmem_register(&priv->client->dev,
>> +						   &config));
> 
> Is there any reason why you are not using devm_rtc_nvmem_register ?
> 
> 

I didn't know it existed. To be honest, it doesn't seem to be doing much.
With that changed, is the rest of the patch OK?

--Sean