Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] mfd: mxs-lradc: Add support for mxs-lradc MFD

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 05/08/16 08:02, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2016, Alexander Stein wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday 04 August 2016 15:28:18, Ksenija Stanojevic wrote:
>>> Add core files for mxs-lradc MFD driver.
>>>
>>> Note:  this patch won't compile in iio/testing without this patch:
>>> a8f447be8056 ("mfd: Add resource managed APIs for mfd_add_devices")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ksenija Stanojevic <ksenija.stanojevic@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> [...]
>>> +static int mxs_lradc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +	const struct of_device_id *of_id;
>>> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> +	struct device_node *node = dev->of_node;
>>> +	struct mxs_lradc *lradc;
>>> +	struct resource *iores;
>>> +	struct mfd_cell *cells = NULL;
>>> +	int ret = 0;
>>> +	u32 ts_wires = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	lradc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lradc), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +	if (!lradc)
>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> +	of_id = of_match_device(mxs_lradc_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
>>> +	lradc->soc = (enum mxs_lradc_id)of_id->data;
>>> +
>>> +	iores = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>>> +	lradc->base = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, iores);
>>
>> Out of couriosity: Is it common to pass already ioremapped addresses to (MFD 
>> cell) platform drivers? I would have expected, and done myself, that ioremap 
>> is done in the driver itself, same as the IRQ.
> 
> Yes, this is exactly what should happen.
> 
Lee, you've confused me with this answer.  Yes, it is common or Yes it
should have been done the way Alexander suggested?

Jonathan