From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mporter@linaro.org (Matt Porter) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:47:50 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: add bcm590xx regulator driver In-Reply-To: <20140219045232.GD2669@sirena.org.uk> References: <1392765432-9111-1-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org> <1392765432-9111-4-git-send-email-mporter@linaro.org> <20140219045232.GD2669@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140311154750.GI25092@beef> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:52:32PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. Ok I dropped this for v3 in favor of using mfd_add_device() and having the regulator driver reference the of_node from the parent device. -Matt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: