From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:51:49 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: k.kozlowski.k@gmail.com, Alim Akhtar , broonie@kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Abraham Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mfd: sec: Add support for S2MPS15 PMIC Message-ID: <20151028135149.GF4058@x1> References: <1445863883-5187-1-git-send-email-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <1445863883-5187-3-git-send-email-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <20151026143411.GL597@x1> <563021AF.6030100@samsung.com> <20151028084609.GG5828@x1> <5630D12C.2030008@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <5630D12C.2030008@samsung.com> List-ID: On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > W dniu 28.10.2015 o 17:46, Lee Jones pisze: > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >> On 26.10.2015 23:34, Lee Jones wrote: > >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Alim Akhtar wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: Thomas Abraham > >>>> > >>>> Add support for S2MPS15 PMIC which is similar to S2MPS11 PMIC. The S2MPS15 > >>>> PMIC supports 27 LDO regulators, 10 buck regulators, RTC, three 32.768KHz > >>>> clock outputs and battery charger. This patch adds initial support for > >>>> LDO and buck regulators of S2MPS15 device. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham > >>>> Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar > >>>> [Alim: Added s2mps15_devs like rtc and clk and related changes] > >>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/mfd/sec-core.c | 31 +++++++ > >>>> drivers/mfd/sec-irq.c | 8 ++ > >>>> include/linux/mfd/samsung/core.h | 1 + > >>>> include/linux/mfd/samsung/s2mps15.h | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> 4 files changed, 198 insertions(+) > >>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/samsung/s2mps15.h > >>> > >>> I replied to the previous set and won't be reviewing this one until > >>> all of the open points are solved. > >> > >> The naming and compatibles used by the driver are confusing but how it > >> was at beginning. Beside the confusion, the names are correct: > >> > >> 1. Main mfd driver: > >> - compatible: samsung,s2mps1*-pmic > >> - driver name: sec_pmic > >> > >> 2. Regulator driver: > >> - no compatible (because it always searches for "regulators" subnode of > >> its parent... that is the convention/legacy behaviour) > >> - driver name: s2mps1*-pmic > >> > >> I hope that explains your concerns. > > > > It explains *why*, but doesn't ease my concerns in any way. > > > > Unfortunately I've only just realised the disparity we have between > > MFD and the Regulator subsystem, which is annoying because it's now > > almost impossible to rectify. > > > > We should have taken one of two views. Either a) The MFD is the PMIC > > device which encompasses regulator control. In which case the MFD > > and it's corresponding compatible string would be named *-pmic and the > > regulator driver would be called *-regulator. Or b) The MFD could be > > considered a normal MFD and be named after the model number, then the > > regulator 'could' be named *-pmic. > > > > However, with reference to b), how much other Power Management does > > the regulator driver do besides control regulators? I suspect not > > much. Therefore my preference would be for a). My second choice > > would be a mixuture of the two where nothing gets named *-pmic. The > > last option on my list would be the current situation where we seem to > > be calling both the MFD (PMIC) itself and the Regulator driver > > *-pmic, which is not good. > > Starting from the description of device-family. This is called "Power > Management IC" but it is rather a "Power Deliver/Distribute IC". There > isn't any logic inside except enable/disable/configure/set low power > mode for regulators. > > However in the same time the IC comes (always) with: > - 32kHz clocks, > - RTC, > - backup battery charger (no driver for it), > - reset for SoC, > - shutdown on thermal alert (also no driver for this control). > > The solution a) seems fine to me. Make sense and it looks entirely > backward compatible - only driver names will be modified. Perfect solution from my PoV. Thanks Krzysztof. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog