Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] can: m_can: add Bosch M_CAN controller support

From: [email-masked] (Varka Bhadram)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:43:18 +0530

On 07/11/2014 03:59 PM, Dong Aisheng wrote:

(...)

> +/* m_can private data structure */
> +struct m_can_priv {
> +	struct can_priv can;	/* must be the first member */
> +	struct napi_struct napi;
> +	struct net_device *dev;
> +	struct device *device;
> +	struct clk *hclk;
> +	struct clk *cclk;
> +	void __iomem *base;
> +	u32 irqstatus;
> +
> +	/* message ram configuration */
> +	void __iomem *mram_base;
> +	struct mram_cfg mcfg[MRAM_CFG_NUM];
> +};
> +

It will be good if we write the comments for the driver private structure

> +static inline u32 m_can_read(const struct m_can_priv *priv, enum m_can_reg reg)
> +{
> +	return readl(priv->base + reg);
> +}
> +

(...)

> +static void free_m_can_dev(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> +	free_candev(dev);
> +}
> +

Why do we need a separate function which calls a single function...  :-)

> +static struct net_device *alloc_m_can_dev(void)
> +{
> +	struct net_device *dev;
> +	struct m_can_priv *priv;
> +
> +	dev = alloc_candev(sizeof(struct m_can_priv), 1);

sizeof(*priv)...?

> +	if (!dev)
> +		return NULL;

Return value -ENOMEM ?

> +
> +	priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> +	netif_napi_add(dev, &priv->napi, m_can_poll, M_CAN_NAPI_WEIGHT);
> +
> +	priv->dev = dev;
> +	priv->can.bittiming_const = &m_can_bittiming_const;
> +	priv->can.do_set_mode = m_can_set_mode;
> +	priv->can.do_get_berr_counter = m_can_get_berr_counter;
> +	priv->can.ctrlmode_supported = CAN_CTRLMODE_LOOPBACK |
> +					CAN_CTRLMODE_LISTENONLY |
> +					CAN_CTRLMODE_BERR_REPORTING;
> +
> +	return dev;
> +}
> +
> +static int m_can_open(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct m_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = clk_prepare_enable(priv->hclk);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	err = clk_prepare_enable(priv->cclk);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto exit_disable_hclk;
> +
> +	/* open the can device */
> +	err = open_candev(dev);
> +	if (err) {
> +		netdev_err(dev, "failed to open can device\n");
> +		goto exit_disable_cclk;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* register interrupt handler */
> +	err = request_irq(dev->irq, m_can_isr, IRQF_SHARED, dev->name,
> +			  dev);

why don't we use devm_request_irq()...? If you use this no need to worry about freeing the irq

> +	if (err < 0) {
> +		netdev_err(dev, "failed to request interrupt\n");
> +		goto exit_irq_fail;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* start the m_can controller */
> +	m_can_start(dev);
> +
> +	can_led_event(dev, CAN_LED_EVENT_OPEN);
> +	napi_enable(&priv->napi);
> +	netif_start_queue(dev);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +
> +exit_irq_fail:
> +	close_candev(dev);
> +exit_disable_cclk:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(priv->cclk);
> +exit_disable_hclk:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(priv->hclk);
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
> +static void m_can_stop(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct m_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> +
> +	/* disable all interrupts */
> +	m_can_disable_all_interrupts(priv);
> +
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(priv->hclk);
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(priv->cclk);
> +
> +	/* set the state as STOPPED */
> +	priv->can.state = CAN_STATE_STOPPED;
> +}
> +
> +static int m_can_close(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct m_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> +
> +	netif_stop_queue(dev);
> +	napi_disable(&priv->napi);
> +	m_can_stop(dev);
> +	free_irq(dev->irq, dev);

not required when you use devm_request_irq()

> +	close_candev(dev);
> +	can_led_event(dev, CAN_LED_EVENT_STOP);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

(...)

> +
> +static const struct of_device_id m_can_of_table[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "bosch,m_can", .data = NULL },

we can simply give '0' . No need of .data = NULL. Things should be simple right....  :-)

> +	{ /* sentinel */ },
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, m_can_of_table);
> +
> +static int m_can_of_parse_mram(struct platform_device *pdev,
> +			       struct m_can_priv *priv)
> +{
> +	struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	void __iomem *addr;
> +	u32 out_val[MRAM_CFG_LEN];
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/* message ram could be shared */
> +	res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "message_ram");
> +	if (!res)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	addr = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, resource_size(res));
> +	if (!addr)
> +		return -ENODEV;

Is this err return is appropriate ... ?

> +
> +	/* get message ram configuration */
> +	ret = of_property_read_u32_array(np, "mram-cfg",
> +					 out_val, sizeof(out_val) / 4);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "can not get message ram configuration\n");
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +

Is this err return is appropriate ... ?

> +	priv->mram_base = addr;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_SIDF].off = out_val[0];
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_SIDF].num = out_val[1];
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_XIDF].off = priv->mcfg[MRAM_SIDF].off +
> +			priv->mcfg[MRAM_SIDF].num * SIDF_ELEMENT_SIZE;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_XIDF].num = out_val[2];
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF0].off = priv->mcfg[MRAM_XIDF].off +
> +			priv->mcfg[MRAM_XIDF].num * XIDF_ELEMENT_SIZE;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF0].num = out_val[3] & RXFC_FS_MASK;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF1].off = priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF0].off +
> +			priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF0].num * RXF0_ELEMENT_SIZE;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF1].num = out_val[4] & RXFC_FS_MASK;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXB].off = priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF1].off +
> +			priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF1].num * RXF1_ELEMENT_SIZE;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXB].num = out_val[5];
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXE].off = priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXB].off +
> +			priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXB].num * RXB_ELEMENT_SIZE;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXE].num = out_val[6];
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXB].off = priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXE].off +
> +			priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXE].num * TXE_ELEMENT_SIZE;
> +	priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXB].num = out_val[7] & TXBC_NDTB_MASK;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "mram_base %p sidf 0x%x %d xidf 0x%x %d rxf0 0x%x %d rxf1 0x%x %d rxb 0x%x %d txe 0x%x %d txb 0x%x %d\n",
> +		priv->mram_base,
> +		priv->mcfg[MRAM_SIDF].off, priv->mcfg[MRAM_SIDF].num,
> +		priv->mcfg[MRAM_XIDF].off, priv->mcfg[MRAM_XIDF].num,
> +		priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF0].off, priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF0].num,
> +		priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF1].off, priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF1].num,
> +		priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXB].off, priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXB].num,
> +		priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXE].off, priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXE].num,
> +		priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXB].off, priv->mcfg[MRAM_TXB].num);
> +

dev_dbg() will insert the new lines in b/w. It wont print the values as you expected.
Check this by enabling debug ...

> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

(...)

> +
> +static void unregister_m_can_dev(struct net_device *dev)
> +{
> +	unregister_candev(dev);
> +}
> +

again a function which calls a single func.

> +static int m_can_plat_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct net_device *dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> +	unregister_m_can_dev(dev);
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> +
> +	free_m_can_dev(dev);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct dev_pm_ops m_can_pmops = {
> +	SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(m_can_suspend, m_can_resume)
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_driver m_can_plat_driver = {
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
> +		.owner = THIS_MODULE,

No need to update .owner. module_platform_driver() will do for you.
see:http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/platform_device.h#L190

> +		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(m_can_of_table),
> +		.pm     = &m_can_pmops,
> +	},
> +	.probe = m_can_plat_probe,
> +	.remove = m_can_plat_remove,
> +};
> +
> +module_platform_driver(m_can_plat_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Dong Aisheng <[email-masked]>");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CAN bus driver for Bosch M_CAN controller");

-- 
Regards,
Varka Bhadram.