Re: [PATCH v1] mfd: Add support for Merrifield Basin Cove PMIC

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:12:11AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > Add an mfd driver for Intel Merrifield Basin Cove PMIC.
> 
> Nit: s/mfd/MFD/

Noted. And changed for v2.

> > +static const struct mfd_cell bcove_dev[] = {
> > +	{
> > +		.name = "mrfld_bcove_pwrbtn",
> > +		.num_resources = 1,
> > +		.resources = &irq_level2_resources[0],
> > +	}, {
> > +		.name = "mrfld_bcove_tmu",
> > +		.num_resources = 1,
> > +		.resources = &irq_level2_resources[1],
> > +	}, {
> > +		.name = "mrfld_bcove_thermal",
> > +		.num_resources = 1,
> > +		.resources = &irq_level2_resources[2],
> > +	}, {
> > +		.name = "mrfld_bcove_bcu",
> > +		.num_resources = 1,
> > +		.resources = &irq_level2_resources[3],
> > +	}, {
> > +		.name = "mrfld_bcove_adc",
> > +		.num_resources = 1,
> > +		.resources = &irq_level2_resources[4],
> > +	}, {
> > +		.name = "mrfld_bcove_charger",
> > +		.num_resources = 1,
> > +		.resources = &irq_level2_resources[5],
> > +	}, {
> > +		.name = "mrfld_bcove_extcon",
> > +		.num_resources = 1,
> > +		.resources = &irq_level2_resources[5],
> > +	}, {
> > +		.name = "mrfld_bcove_gpio",
> > +		.num_resources = 1,
> > +		.resources = &irq_level2_resources[6],
> > +	},
> > +	{	.name = "mrfld_bcove_region", },
> > +};

> > +static int regmap_ipc_byte_reg_read(void *context, unsigned int reg,
> 
> Prefixing these with regmap is pretty confusing, since this it not
> part of the Regmap API.  Better to provide them with local names
> instead.
> 
>   bcove_ipc_byte_reg_read()

Good point. And changed for v2.

> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(irq_level2_resources); i++) {
> > +		ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
> > +		if (ret < 0)
> > +			return ret;
> > +
> > +		irq_level2_resources[i].start = ret;
> > +		irq_level2_resources[i].end = ret;
> > +	}
> 
> Although succinct, dragging values from one platform device into
> another doesn't sound that neat.

So, how to split resources given in one _physical_ multi-functional device to
several of them?  Isn't it what MFD framework for?

Any other approach here? I'm all ears!

> Also, since the ordering of the
> devices is critical in this implementation, it also comes across as
> fragile.

How fragile? In ACPI we don't have IRQ labeling scheme. Index is used for that.

> Any reason why ACPI can't register all of the child devices, or for
> the child devices to obtain their IRQ directly from the tables?

And how are we supposed to enumerated them taking into consideration single
ACPI ID given?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko