From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 16:28:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: max8925: request resource region In-Reply-To: <201205091503.22950.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1336360249-29963-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@gmail.com> <201205091419.50736.arnd@arndb.de> <20120509144241.GW3955@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <201205091503.22950.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20120509152827.GA3955@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 03:03:22PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I mean that each device providing resources of the new type would need > to register its resources to the same root resource with non-conclicting Oh, right - I see what you mean. I was thinking of creating a per-chip parent for each tree rather than trying to make them a unified tree, though I guess it's useful for diagnostics. Multi-level resources might be slightly fun with this though I'm not sure how realistic they are. > addresses. Having resources hanging in the air without a parent pointer > is not good, although we seem to be doing that for a lot of platform > devices these days, where we just pass the struct resource from platform > code to a driver without ever registering it at each end. They should all be being registered by the platform core when the platform device is registered I think? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: