diff mbox series

[v3,1/5] rtc: pm8xxx: implement qcom,no-alarm flag for non-HLOS owned alarm

Message ID 20241015004945.3676-2-jonathan@marek.ca
State New
Headers show
Series x1e80100 RTC support | expand

Commit Message

Jonathan Marek Oct. 15, 2024, 12:47 a.m. UTC
Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP.
Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not
possible.

Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform.

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Comments

Bjorn Andersson Oct. 15, 2024, 7:24 p.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP.
> Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not
> possible.
> 
> Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform.
> 

Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@oss.qualcomm.com>

Alexandre, please pick up the driver and dt-binding patch (i.e. patch 1
& 2) through your tree, and I can pick the dts patches through the qcom
tree.

Regards,
Bjorn

> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc {
>  	struct rtc_device *rtc;
>  	struct regmap *regmap;
>  	bool allow_set_time;
> +	bool no_alarm;
>  	int alarm_irq;
>  	const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
>  	struct device *dev;
> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
>  		return -ENXIO;
>  
> -	rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> -	if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> -		return -ENXIO;
> +	rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
> +						 "qcom,no-alarm");
> +
> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> +		rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> +		if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> +			return -ENXIO;
> +	}
>  
>  	rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
>  						      "allow-set-time");
> @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd);
>  
> -	device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm)
> +		device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
>  
>  	rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev);
>  	if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc))
> @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops;
>  	rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX;
>  
> -	rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
> -					  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
> -					  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
> -					  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
> -	if (rc < 0)
> -		return rc;
> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> +		rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
> +						  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
> +						  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
> +						  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
> +		if (rc < 0)
> +			return rc;
> +	}
>  
>  	rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc);
>  	if (rc)
>  		return rc;
>  
> -	rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
> -	if (rc)
> -		return rc;
> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> +		rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
> +		if (rc)
> +			return rc;
> +	} else {
> +		clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features);
> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static void pm8xxx_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> -	dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev);
> +	struct pm8xxx_rtc *rtc_dd = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm)
> +		dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev);
>  }
>  
>  static struct platform_driver pm8xxx_rtc_driver = {
> -- 
> 2.45.1
>
Johan Hovold Oct. 16, 2024, 6:42 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP.
> Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not
> possible.
> 
> Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform.

An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that
as an indicator.

> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
> ---
>  drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc {
>  	struct rtc_device *rtc;
>  	struct regmap *regmap;
>  	bool allow_set_time;
> +	bool no_alarm;

How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid
the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)?

>  	int alarm_irq;
>  	const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
>  	struct device *dev;
> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
>  		return -ENXIO;
>  
> -	rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> -	if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> -		return -ENXIO;
> +	rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
> +						 "qcom,no-alarm");
> +

Stray newline.

> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> +		rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> +		if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> +			return -ENXIO;
> +	}
>  
>  	rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
>  						      "allow-set-time");
> @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd);
>  
> -	device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm)
> +		device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
>  
>  	rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev);
>  	if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc))
> @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops;
>  	rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX;
>  
> -	rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
> -					  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
> -					  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
> -					  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
> -	if (rc < 0)
> -		return rc;
> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> +		rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
> +						  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
> +						  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
> +						  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
> +		if (rc < 0)
> +			return rc;
> +	}
>  
>  	rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc);
>  	if (rc)
>  		return rc;
>  
> -	rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
> -	if (rc)
> -		return rc;
> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> +		rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
> +		if (rc)
> +			return rc;
> +	} else {
> +		clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features);

I assume that you should be clearing the feature bit before registering
the RTC.

> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

Johan
Alexandre Belloni Oct. 16, 2024, 12:26 p.m. UTC | #3
On 16/10/2024 08:42:46+0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> > Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP.
> > Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not
> > possible.
> > 
> > Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform.
> 
> An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that
> as an indicator.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
> > ---
> >  drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> > index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644
> > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc {
> >  	struct rtc_device *rtc;
> >  	struct regmap *regmap;
> >  	bool allow_set_time;
> > +	bool no_alarm;
> 
> How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid
> the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)?
> 
> >  	int alarm_irq;
> >  	const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
> >  	struct device *dev;
> > @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
> >  		return -ENXIO;
> >  
> > -	rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > -	if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> > -		return -ENXIO;
> > +	rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
> > +						 "qcom,no-alarm");
> > +
> 
> Stray newline.
> 
> > +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> > +		rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > +		if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> > +			return -ENXIO;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
> >  						      "allow-set-time");
> > @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  
> >  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd);
> >  
> > -	device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
> > +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm)
> > +		device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
> >  
> >  	rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev);
> >  	if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc))
> > @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops;
> >  	rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX;
> >  
> > -	rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
> > -					  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
> > -					  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
> > -					  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
> > -	if (rc < 0)
> > -		return rc;
> > +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> > +		rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
> > +						  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
> > +						  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
> > +						  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
> > +		if (rc < 0)
> > +			return rc;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc);
> >  	if (rc)
> >  		return rc;
> >  
> > -	rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
> > -	if (rc)
> > -		return rc;
> > +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> > +		rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
> > +		if (rc)
> > +			return rc;

Also, probe must not fail after devm_rtc_allocate_device has been
called.so you could fix this with this patch.

> > +	} else {
> > +		clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features);
> 
> I assume that you should be clearing the feature bit before registering
> the RTC.
> 
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
> Johan
Jonathan Marek Oct. 16, 2024, 12:44 p.m. UTC | #4
On 10/16/24 2:42 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
>> Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP.
>> Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not
>> possible.
>>
>> Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform.
> 
> An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that
> as an indicator.
> 

That wouldn't be right, the registers/interrupt still exist and should 
be described in DT.

(if you have firmware that allows access to the alarm, now you only have 
to delete the qcom,no-alarm property in your dts to use it)

>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
>> ---
>>   drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
>> index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644
>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
>> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc {
>>   	struct rtc_device *rtc;
>>   	struct regmap *regmap;
>>   	bool allow_set_time;
>> +	bool no_alarm;
> 
> How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid
> the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)?
> 

My reasoning is that the DT flag has to be negative, and its better to 
use the same name as the DT flag, but inverting it is OK.

>>   	int alarm_irq;
>>   	const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
>>   	struct device *dev;
>> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
>>   		return -ENXIO;
>>   
>> -	rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> -	if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
>> -		return -ENXIO;
>> +	rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
>> +						 "qcom,no-alarm");
>> +
> 
> Stray newline.
> 

That's not a stray newline?

>> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
>> +		rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> +		if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
>> +			return -ENXIO;
>> +	}
>>   
>>   	rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
>>   						      "allow-set-time");
>> @@ -503,7 +509,8 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   
>>   	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd);
>>   
>> -	device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
>> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm)
>> +		device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
>>   
>>   	rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev);
>>   	if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc))
>> @@ -512,27 +519,36 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops;
>>   	rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX;
>>   
>> -	rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
>> -					  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
>> -					  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
>> -					  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
>> -	if (rc < 0)
>> -		return rc;
>> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
>> +		rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
>> +						  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
>> +						  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
>> +						  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
>> +		if (rc < 0)
>> +			return rc;
>> +	}
>>   
>>   	rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc);
>>   	if (rc)
>>   		return rc;
>>   
>> -	rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
>> -	if (rc)
>> -		return rc;
>> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
>> +		rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
>> +		if (rc)
>> +			return rc;
>> +	} else {
>> +		clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features);
> 
> I assume that you should be clearing the feature bit before registering
> the RTC.
> 

Right, it just needs to be after devm_rtc_allocate_device, not 
devm_rtc_register_device.

>> +	}
>>   
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
> 
> Johan
>
Johan Hovold Oct. 16, 2024, 1:02 p.m. UTC | #5
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 08:44:26AM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> On 10/16/24 2:42 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:47:26PM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> >> Qualcomm x1e80100 firmware sets the ownership of the RTC alarm to ADSP.
> >> Thus writing to RTC alarm registers and receiving alarm interrupts is not
> >> possible.
> >>
> >> Add a qcom,no-alarm flag to support RTC on this platform.
> > 
> > An alternative may be to drop the alarm interrupt from DT and use that
> > as an indicator.
> 
> That wouldn't be right, the registers/interrupt still exist and should 
> be described in DT.

Yeah, the registers are still there, and are probably readable too
(IIRC), but the OS will never receive any interrupts.

> (if you have firmware that allows access to the alarm, now you only have 
> to delete the qcom,no-alarm property in your dts to use it)

Fair enough. And the new flag mirrors the old.

> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> >> index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
> >> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct pm8xxx_rtc {
> >>   	struct rtc_device *rtc;
> >>   	struct regmap *regmap;
> >>   	bool allow_set_time;
> >> +	bool no_alarm;
> > 
> > How about inverting this one and naming it has_alarm or similar to avoid
> > the double negation in your conditionals (!no_alarm)?
> > 
> 
> My reasoning is that the DT flag has to be negative, and its better to 
> use the same name as the DT flag, but inverting it is OK.

I agree about the dt parameter, but I still I prefer a non-negated
variable (similar to allow_set_time).

> >>   	int alarm_irq;
> >>   	const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
> >>   	struct device *dev;
> >> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>   	if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
> >>   		return -ENXIO;
> >>   
> >> -	rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> -	if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> >> -		return -ENXIO;
> >> +	rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
> >> +						 "qcom,no-alarm");
> >> +
> > 
> > Stray newline.
> > 
> 
> That's not a stray newline?

There was no empty line between the assignment and check before this
change, but now there is even though there should not be.
 
> >> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
> >> +		rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> +		if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> >> +			return -ENXIO;
> >> +	}

Johan
Jonathan Marek Oct. 16, 2024, 1:12 p.m. UTC | #6
On 10/16/24 9:02 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>>>    	int alarm_irq;
>>>>    	const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
>>>>    	struct device *dev;
>>>> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    	if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
>>>>    		return -ENXIO;
>>>>    
>>>> -	rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> -	if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
>>>> -		return -ENXIO;
>>>> +	rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
>>>> +						 "qcom,no-alarm");
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Stray newline.
>>>
>>
>> That's not a stray newline?
> 
> There was no empty line between the assignment and check before this
> change, but now there is even though there should not be.
>   

There was no empty line between the "alarm_irq" assignment and check, 
and there still isn't. That empty line separating the new 
of_property_read_bool() line.

I could move both of_property_read_bool() lines together to make it look 
better.

>>>> +	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
>>>> +		rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> +		if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
>>>> +			return -ENXIO;
>>>> +	}
> 
> Johan
>
Johan Hovold Oct. 16, 2024, 1:21 p.m. UTC | #7
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:12:08AM -0400, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> On 10/16/24 9:02 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >>>>    	int alarm_irq;
> >>>>    	const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
> >>>>    	struct device *dev;
> >>>> @@ -473,9 +474,14 @@ static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>>    	if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
> >>>>    		return -ENXIO;
> >>>>    
> >>>> -	rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >>>> -	if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
> >>>> -		return -ENXIO;
> >>>> +	rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
> >>>> +						 "qcom,no-alarm");
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> Stray newline.
> >>
> >> That's not a stray newline?
> > 
> > There was no empty line between the assignment and check before this
> > change, but now there is even though there should not be.
> 
> There was no empty line between the "alarm_irq" assignment and check, 
> and there still isn't. That empty line separating the new 
> of_property_read_bool() line.

Ah, sorry, my bad.

> I could move both of_property_read_bool() lines together to make it look 
> better.

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

Johan
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
index c32fba550c8e0..1e78939625622 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-pm8xxx.c
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@  struct pm8xxx_rtc {
 	struct rtc_device *rtc;
 	struct regmap *regmap;
 	bool allow_set_time;
+	bool no_alarm;
 	int alarm_irq;
 	const struct pm8xxx_rtc_regs *regs;
 	struct device *dev;
@@ -473,9 +474,14 @@  static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (!rtc_dd->regmap)
 		return -ENXIO;
 
-	rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
-	if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
-		return -ENXIO;
+	rtc_dd->no_alarm = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
+						 "qcom,no-alarm");
+
+	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
+		rtc_dd->alarm_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+		if (rtc_dd->alarm_irq < 0)
+			return -ENXIO;
+	}
 
 	rtc_dd->allow_set_time = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
 						      "allow-set-time");
@@ -503,7 +509,8 @@  static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc_dd);
 
-	device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
+	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm)
+		device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
 
 	rtc_dd->rtc = devm_rtc_allocate_device(&pdev->dev);
 	if (IS_ERR(rtc_dd->rtc))
@@ -512,27 +519,36 @@  static int pm8xxx_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	rtc_dd->rtc->ops = &pm8xxx_rtc_ops;
 	rtc_dd->rtc->range_max = U32_MAX;
 
-	rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
-					  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
-					  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
-					  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
-	if (rc < 0)
-		return rc;
+	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
+		rc = devm_request_any_context_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq,
+						  pm8xxx_alarm_trigger,
+						  IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
+						  "pm8xxx_rtc_alarm", rtc_dd);
+		if (rc < 0)
+			return rc;
+	}
 
 	rc = devm_rtc_register_device(rtc_dd->rtc);
 	if (rc)
 		return rc;
 
-	rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
-	if (rc)
-		return rc;
+	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm) {
+		rc = dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc_dd->alarm_irq);
+		if (rc)
+			return rc;
+	} else {
+		clear_bit(RTC_FEATURE_ALARM, rtc_dd->rtc->features);
+	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
 
 static void pm8xxx_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
-	dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev);
+	struct pm8xxx_rtc *rtc_dd = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+
+	if (!rtc_dd->no_alarm)
+		dev_pm_clear_wake_irq(&pdev->dev);
 }
 
 static struct platform_driver pm8xxx_rtc_driver = {