Hi Jonas,
On 9/2/24 4:28 PM, Jonas Karlman wrote:
Hi Quentin,
On 2024-09-02 13:14, Quentin Schulz wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On 8/31/24 12:42 AM, Jonas Karlman wrote:
Wrong POWER_EN reg is used to get and set enabled state for the RK806 buck 4 and 8 regulators, also wrong POWER_SLP_EN0 bit is used for suspend state for the RK806 buck 1-8 regulators.
Fix this by not adding one to the zero based buck variable.
Fixes: f172575d92cd ("power: rk8xx: add support for RK806")
Shoot, I made a lot of mistakes in that driver :/
Thanks for catching those :)
Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman jonas@kwiboo.se
drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c b/drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c index 34e61511d884..3f5ec02b3824 100644 --- a/drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c +++ b/drivers/power/regulator/rk8xx.c @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ static int _buck_set_enable(struct udevice *pmic, int buck, bool enable) break; case RK806_ID: value = RK806_POWER_EN_CLRSETBITS(buck % 4, enable);
en_reg = RK806_POWER_EN((buck + 1) / 4);
en_reg = RK806_POWER_EN(buck / 4); ret = pmic_reg_write(pmic, en_reg, value); break;@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static int _buck_get_enable(struct udevice *pmic, int buck) break; case RK806_ID: mask = BIT(buck % 4);
ret = pmic_reg_read(pmic, RK806_POWER_EN((buck + 1) / 4));
ret = pmic_reg_read(pmic, RK806_POWER_EN(buck / 4)); break;@@ -541,10 +541,10 @@ static int _buck_set_suspend_enable(struct udevice *pmic, int buck, bool enable)
if (buck + 1 >= 9) { reg = RK806_POWER_SLP_EN1;
mask = BIT(buck + 1 - 3);
mask = BIT(buck - 2);I like my (+ 1 - 3) here to match buck + 1 above. buck + 1 represents the buck number in the datasheet (index starts at one), so you need to subtract 3 to that index to find the bit index in the register.
I understand this reasoning and would fully agree if this was the only use of buck in BIT(), however each time I tried to scan over this code, (with buck is 0-based in mind) this buck + 1 - 3 made me stop and re-think if this really was correct.
Fair enough. Should we migrate buck + 1 >= 9 to buck >= 8 with an additional comment explaining this is for BUCK9/BUCK10?
I have no strong opinion and can revert this change if you like.
} else { reg = RK806_POWER_SLP_EN0;
mask = BIT(buck + 1);
mask = BIT(buck); } ret = pmic_clrsetbits(pmic, reg, mask, enable ? mask : 0); }@@ -592,10 +592,10 @@ static int _buck_get_suspend_enable(struct udevice *pmic, int buck)
if (buck + 1 >= 9) { reg = RK806_POWER_SLP_EN1;
mask = BIT(buck + 1 - 3);
mask = BIT(buck - 2);Ditto.
Just a matter of taste though!
Let me know if you want me to send a v2 with this change reverted.
It just creeps in along changes that are actually bugs and I had to do a double take on the diff to make sure it was correct.
I could suggest two separate commits: 1) bug fixes from buck + 1 to buck (basically everything but the buck - 2 changes) 2) change buck + 1 that I added for "readability" to buck by subtracting one elsewhere and maybe adding a comment for better readability?
What do you think?
Cheers, Quentin