lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices
    On 09/19/2013 06:22 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
    >>>>> Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be worth
    >>>>> breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they do,
    >>>>> then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you do
    >>>>> not require sub-nodes. The MFD core will ensure the sub-devices are
    >>>>> probed and there is no requirement for the of_node to be assigned.
    >>>> You do see some reusable IP blocks (like the regualtors on the wm831x
    >>>> PMICs for example, they're repeated blocks) which can be reused but
    >>>> generally they have a register base as part of the binding. Personally
    >>>> if it's just a property or two I'd probably just put them on the root
    >>>> node for the device.
    >>> Agreed. Besides, there doesn't seem to be *any* sub-device properties
    >>> defined in the binding document. So what are you trying to achieve
    >>> with the child nodes?
    >>
    >> I wanted to have the DT like:
    >>
    >> as3722 {
    >> compatible = "ams,as3722";
    >> reg = <0x40>;
    >>
    >> #interrupt-controller;
    >> .....
    >>
    >>
    >> regulators {
    >> ldo1-in-supply = <..>;
    >> ....
    >> sd0 {
    >> regulator-name = "vdd-cpu";
    >> .....
    >> };
    >> sd1 {
    >> regulator-name = "vdd-ddr";
    >> .....
    >> };
    >> ....
    >> };
    >> };
    >>
    >> And regulator driver should get the regulator node by their
    >> pdev->dev.of_node.
    >> Currently, in most of driver, we are having the code on regulator
    >> driver to get "regulators" node from parent node which I want to
    >> avoid.
    >
    > Ah, I see. Yes, I believe the regulators should have their own node,

    The use of a "regulators" node to keep all the regulator configuration
    in one place seems fine...

    > complete with a compatible string.

    ... but I see not reason why that node has to have a separate compatible
    property, or /has/ to have a separate driver.

    I think having a compatible value in this node would only be required if
    the HW block that implements those registers is actually expected to be
    shared between n different chips, and hence it's likely that you'd get
    re-use out of a separate binding, driver, etc.

    It's perfectly reasonable for the regulator MFD driver to know that the
    binding for the top-level PMIC node has a regulators child node, and go
    find it by name, and read whatever properties/nodes it needs directly
    out of it. Writing code that way in no ways implies a need for a
    compatible value.

    > To have each regulator listed
    > separately in the parent node seems a little messy. Just out of
    > interest, how many regulators are we talking about here?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-09-23 23:01    [W:2.430 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site