From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: add bcm590xx regulator driver
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:52:32 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140219045232.GD2669@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392765432-9111-4-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org>
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:17:10PM -0500, Matt Porter wrote:
> +static struct of_device_id bcm590xx_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm59056-regs", },
> + { }
> +};
This looks pretty much OK however I am in general suspicious of MFDs
that have subdevices like this in the DT - it doesn't seem like this is
a reusable device which can appear anywhere else so you're pretty much
just representing the way that Linux splits things up here rather than a
reusable IP that can reasonably have a separate binding.
If you had a binding which did something like enumerate the individual
IP blocks as individual devices that'd be more interesting, I could see
for example that a different PMIC might have a different set of register
compatible regulator IPs laid out. It looks like that might be doable,
but it's in no way essential.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140219/3104d004/attachment-0001.sig>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Matt Porter <mporter-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Ian Campbell
<ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org>,
Kumar Gala <galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
Christian Daudt <bcm-xK7y4jjYLqYh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>,
Devicetree List
<devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Linux ARM Kernel List
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: add bcm590xx regulator driver
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:52:32 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140219045232.GD2669@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392765432-9111-4-git-send-email-mporter-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 837 bytes --]
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:17:10PM -0500, Matt Porter wrote:
> +static struct of_device_id bcm590xx_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm59056-regs", },
> + { }
> +};
This looks pretty much OK however I am in general suspicious of MFDs
that have subdevices like this in the DT - it doesn't seem like this is
a reusable device which can appear anywhere else so you're pretty much
just representing the way that Linux splits things up here rather than a
reusable IP that can reasonably have a separate binding.
If you had a binding which did something like enumerate the individual
IP blocks as individual devices that'd be more interesting, I could see
for example that a different PMIC might have a different set of register
compatible regulator IPs laid out. It looks like that might be doable,
but it's in no way essential.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Matt Porter <mporter@linaro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Christian Daudt <bcm@fixthebug.org>,
Devicetree List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: add bcm590xx regulator driver
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:52:32 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140219045232.GD2669@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1392765432-9111-4-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 837 bytes --]
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:17:10PM -0500, Matt Porter wrote:
> +static struct of_device_id bcm590xx_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm59056-regs", },
> + { }
> +};
This looks pretty much OK however I am in general suspicious of MFDs
that have subdevices like this in the DT - it doesn't seem like this is
a reusable device which can appear anywhere else so you're pretty much
just representing the way that Linux splits things up here rather than a
reusable IP that can reasonably have a separate binding.
If you had a binding which did something like enumerate the individual
IP blocks as individual devices that'd be more interesting, I could see
for example that a different PMIC might have a different set of register
compatible regulator IPs laid out. It looks like that might be doable,
but it's in no way essential.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-19 4:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-18 23:17 [PATCH v2 0/5] BCM59056 PMU regulator support Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mfd: add bcm590xx pmu DT binding Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-19 4:47 ` Mark Brown
2014-02-19 4:47 ` Mark Brown
2014-02-19 4:47 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-11 15:49 ` Matt Porter
2014-03-11 15:49 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mfd: add bcm590xx pmu driver Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-19 4:46 ` Mark Brown
2014-02-19 4:46 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-11 15:50 ` Matt Porter
2014-03-11 15:50 ` Matt Porter
2014-03-11 15:50 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: add bcm590xx regulator driver Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-19 4:52 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2014-02-19 4:52 ` Mark Brown
2014-02-19 4:52 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-11 15:47 ` Matt Porter
2014-03-11 15:47 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] ARM: configs: bcm_defconfig: enable bcm590xx regulator support Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] ARM: dts: add bcm590xx pmu support and enable for bcm28155-ap Matt Porter
2014-02-18 23:17 ` Matt Porter
2014-02-19 4:44 ` Mark Brown
2014-02-19 4:44 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-11 15:50 ` Matt Porter
2014-03-11 15:50 ` Matt Porter
2014-03-11 15:50 ` Matt Porter
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=20140219045232.GD2669@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.