From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:42:10 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v1 3/7] mfd: add atmel-lcdc driver
In-Reply-To: <1afc6d63-094b-3bff-87e9-d2354602ba76@microchip.com>
References: <20180812184152.GA22343@ravnborg.org>
 <20180812184629.3808-3-sam@ravnborg.org>
 <20180815052435.GA6412@dell> <20180815204041.GA29041@ravnborg.org>
 <1afc6d63-094b-3bff-87e9-d2354602ba76@microchip.com>
Message-ID: <20180816084210.GB10054@dell>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018, Nicolas Ferre wrote:

> On 15/08/2018 at 22:40, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Hi Lee.
> > 
> > > > +
> > > > +static const struct mfd_cell lcdc_cells[] = {
> > > > +	{
> > > > +		.name = "atmel-lcdc-pwm",
> > > > +		.of_compatible = "atmel,lcdc-pwm",
> > > > +	},
> > > > +	{
> > > > +		.name = "atmel-lcdc-dc",
> > > > +		.of_compatible = "atmel,lcdc-display-controller",
> > > > +	},
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > Will you be adding any more devices, or is this the entirety of the
> > > device?  If the latter, I suggest that this doesn't warrant being an
> > > MFD.
> > Thats it. And others agree with you that this is not a good approach.
> > So in v2 there will be no MFD.
> > 
> > Thanks for confirming that the non-mfd way is the better approach.
> 
> MFD approach would have had the benefit of keeping this driver series
> architecture close to the HLCD one. This would have been easier to
> understand and use one SoC or another one from the AT91 product line....

Yes, that is true.  They are very similar drivers.  Would it make
sense to use the same driver for both devices?

> Anyway, I'd wait for Boris' feedback for making a decision.

-- 
Lee Jones [???]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog