lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/7] mfd: pm8921: Migrate to irqdomains
On Tue, 07 Jan 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> On 01/07, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > >> + return of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
> > > >> +}
> > > > Can't you use the MFD core instead?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting using mfd_add_devices()? At first glance it looks
> > > like that would require an array of mfd_cell structures that do nothing
> > > besides match compatible strings in the DT. Using of_platform_populate()
> > > achieves the same goal and doesn't require an array of mfd_cell
> > > structures for each different pm8xxx chip that comes along, meaning
> > > simpler code.
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree, but playing Devil's advocate here, as a device
> > using the MFD subsystem it's often clearer to readers and other people
> > looking for examples if the MFD core functionality is used. For
> > instance, I now have no idea what devices the PM8xxx encompasses
> > without looking at the DTS file. A small cell structure is a small
> > price to pay for code clarity IMHO.
> >
>
> Why not just put that information in the binding document? And
> how is this different from adding a bunch of C files to match a
> set of compatible strings that a dts file has just so that we can
> add all the devices on a board (think board files for an SoC).
> Sure it documents the devices on a board, but we've been moving
> away from that by using of_platform_populate().
>
> IMHO the code is clear. I want to add all subnodes of this
> device's node as children struct devices. Using
> of_platform_populate() says that, whereas mfd_add_devices() says
> I want to add these specific subnodes of this device's node.
>
> Also, as more drivers are written and more bindings are ratified
> this platform driver will need to be updated with more cells and
> more compatible strings, causing more inter-tree dependencies and
> more patches. Please, let's avoid this if we can.

Okay, that's fine. There are a few discussions floating around about
this. If I find some time, I'll have to have a think about the pros
and cons of either approach. This is okay for now.

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-08 10:01    [W:0.365 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site