From: Lee Jones <lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Laxman Dewangan
<ldewangan-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
sameo-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org,
rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org,
pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org,
mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org,
swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org,
ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org,
rob-VoJi6FS/r0vR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:00:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130919120051.GG22389@lee--X1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130919115501.GM21013-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:30:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > I'm not entirely sure this is what Mark was saying. I think he was
> > complaining about the existence of the sub-nodes rather than how the
> > MFD Core assigns their of_node. My take is that the chip is really a
> > single device which provides different bits of functionality. To break
> > that functionality up and disperse the drivers into various subsystems
> > is a Linuxisum. By providing each functional block with its own node
> > you're describing how we do things in Linux, rather than specifying a
> > single node for the AS3722 which would probably be the norm.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of.
>
> > 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?
--
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 devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>,
sameo@linux.intel.com, rob.herring@calxeda.com,
pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, swarren@wwwdotorg.org,
ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, rob@landley.net,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:00:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130919120051.GG22389@lee--X1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130919115501.GM21013@sirena.org.uk>
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:30:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > I'm not entirely sure this is what Mark was saying. I think he was
> > complaining about the existence of the sub-nodes rather than how the
> > MFD Core assigns their of_node. My take is that the chip is really a
> > single device which provides different bits of functionality. To break
> > that functionality up and disperse the drivers into various subsystems
> > is a Linuxisum. By providing each functional block with its own node
> > you're describing how we do things in Linux, rather than specifying a
> > single node for the AS3722 which would probably be the norm.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of.
>
> > 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?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-19 12:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-19 8:29 [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices Laxman Dewangan
2013-09-19 8:29 ` Laxman Dewangan
2013-09-19 8:30 ` Lee Jones
2013-09-19 8:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
2013-09-19 8:57 ` Laxman Dewangan
2013-09-19 11:55 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <20130919115501.GM21013-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-19 12:00 ` Lee Jones [this message]
2013-09-19 12:00 ` Lee Jones
2013-09-19 12:28 ` Laxman Dewangan
2013-09-19 12:28 ` Laxman Dewangan
[not found] ` <523AEE07.9090405-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-19 12:22 ` Lee Jones
2013-09-19 12:22 ` Lee Jones
2013-09-19 12:54 ` Laxman Dewangan
2013-09-23 20:46 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-23 20:46 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-24 13:55 ` Lee Jones
[not found] ` <1379579392-1794-1-git-send-email-ldewangan-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-23 20:50 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-23 20:50 ` Stephen Warren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130919120051.GG22389@lee--X1 \
--to=lee.jones-qsej5fyqhm4dnm+yrofe0a@public.gmane.org \
--cc=broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=ldewangan-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=rob-VoJi6FS/r0vR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=sameo-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.