Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices

[Laxman Dewangan]

On Thursday 19 September 2013 05:52 PM, 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,
> complete with a compatible string. 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?
There is 7 DCDC step down and 10 LDOs.
It is more readable if sub-module properties are grouped and defined on 
different sub-node in place of having this in single parent node.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/