Subject: [PATCH v2] i2c: axxia: Add I2C driver for AXM55xx

From: [email-masked] (Varka Bhadram)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:44:52 +0530

On 09/29/2014 04:43 PM, Anders Berg wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Varka Bhadram <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On 09/29/2014 03:02 PM, Anders Berg wrote:
>>> Add I2C bus driver for the controller found in the LSI Axxia family SoCs.
>>> The
>>> driver implements 10-bit addressing and SMBus transfer modes via emulation
>>> (including SMBus block data read).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anders Berg <[email-masked]>
>>> ---
>>>
> (...)
>>> +
>>> +       if (!idev->msg) {
>>> +               dev_warn(idev->dev, "unexpected interrupt");
>>
>> Missed terminating new line '\n'
>>
> Right, I'll fix that (all occurrences)
>
>>> +               goto out;
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       /* RX FIFO needs service? */
>>> +       if (i2c_m_rd(idev->msg) && (status & MST_STATUS_RFL))
>>> +               axxia_i2c_empty_rx_fifo(idev);
>>> +
>>> +       /* TX FIFO needs service? */
>>> +       if (!i2c_m_rd(idev->msg) && (status & MST_STATUS_TFL)) {
>>> +               if (axxia_i2c_fill_tx_fifo(idev) == 0)
>>> +                       i2c_int_disable(idev, MST_STATUS_TFL);
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       if (status & MST_STATUS_SCC) {
>>> +               /* Stop completed */
>>> +               i2c_int_disable(idev, ~0);
>>> +               complete(&idev->msg_complete);
>>> +       } else if (status & MST_STATUS_SNS) {
>>> +               /* Transfer done */
>>> +               i2c_int_disable(idev, ~0);
>>> +               if (i2c_m_rd(idev->msg) && idev->msg_xfrd <
>>> idev->msg->len)
>>> +                       axxia_i2c_empty_rx_fifo(idev);
>>> +               complete(&idev->msg_complete);
>>> +       } else if (unlikely(status & MST_STATUS_ERR)) {
>>> +               /* Transfer error */
>>> +               i2c_int_disable(idev, ~0);
>>> +               if (status & MST_STATUS_AL)
>>> +                       idev->msg_err = -EAGAIN;
>>> +               else if (status & MST_STATUS_NAK)
>>> +                       idev->msg_err = -ENXIO;
>>> +               else
>>> +                       idev->msg_err = -EIO;
>>> +               dev_dbg(idev->dev, "error %#x, addr=%#x rx=%u/%u
>>> tx=%u/%u\n",
>>> +                       status,
>>> +                       idev->msg->addr,
>>> +                       readl(idev->base + MST_RX_BYTES_XFRD),
>>> +                       readl(idev->base + MST_RX_XFER),
>>> +                       readl(idev->base + MST_TX_BYTES_XFRD),
>>> +                       readl(idev->base + MST_TX_XFER));
>>> +               complete(&idev->msg_complete);
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +out:
>>> +       /* Clear interrupt */
>>> +       writel(INT_MST, idev->base + INTERRUPT_STATUS);
>>> +
>>> +       return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Its looks good if we move the entire ISR above probe/remove
>> functionalities...
>>
> Not sure what you mean here... The ISR _is_ above probe/remove.

I mean ISR should immediately above probe functionality. So that we can see
devm_request_irq(..,isr_name,..) ISR directly with isr name..

-- 
Regards,
Varka Bhadram.