Hello Quentin,
On 2024-06-17 16:10, Quentin Schulz wrote:
On 6/6/24 10:45 AM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@cherry.de>
The ID of the PMIC is stored in the 2 16b registers but the only part
that matters right now is the 3 MSB, which make the 3 digits (in hex)
of
the part number.
Right now, only RK808 was properly displayed, with this all currently
supported PMICs should display the proper part number.
Additionally, when the PMIC variant is not found, print that value
instead of the masked unshifted value as all PMICs we support for now
have their LSB ignored to represent the actual part number.
Tested on RK806 (RK3588 Jaguar), RK808 (RK3399 Puma) and RK809 (PX30
Ringneck).
Reviewed-by: Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com>
Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@cherry.de>
---
drivers/power/pmic/rk8xx.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/power/pmic/rk8xx.c b/drivers/power/pmic/rk8xx.c
index 12ff26a0855..617bb511e4e 100644
--- a/drivers/power/pmic/rk8xx.c
+++ b/drivers/power/pmic/rk8xx.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include <dm.h>
#include <dm/lists.h>
+#include <bitfield.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <log.h>
#include <linux/bitfield.h>
@@ -277,10 +278,9 @@ static int rk8xx_probe(struct udevice *dev)
return ret;
priv->variant = ((msb << 8) | lsb) & RK8XX_ID_MSK;
- show_variant = priv->variant;
+ show_variant = bitfield_extract_by_mask(priv->variant,
RK8XX_ID_MSK);
switch (priv->variant) {
case RK808_ID:
- show_variant = 0x808; /* RK808 hardware ID is 0 */
This line removal is actually incorrect, I should have left this in as
we cannot use the same logic as other PMICs for RK808 as it returns 0,
so 0 masked/shifted is still zero.
Thanks for catching this! Moreover, I think we should skip reading
the msb and lsb values entirely for the RK808, because its datasheet
lists the default ID_MSB (0x17) and ID_LSB (0x18) registers as reserved,
and provides no information about gathering the chip variant.
I saw that Kever has already sent a merge request for next with this
patch, so we have two options: reject the merge and I send another
patch for next branch, or Kever cancels the merge request, I send a v4
for this patch and Kever sends a new merge request? How do we want to
proceed with this. I have a feeling the additional patch is going to
be easier for everyone as 1) it's for next branch, 2) isn't breaking
anything except some info message, which was already wrong (but for
all non-RK808 PMICs :) ).
I think the latter is the way to go, because the pull request has
been already merged.
