From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/16] dt-bindings: rtc: mediatek: add bindings for PMIC RTC Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:53:17 +0800 Message-ID: <1522209197.18424.26.camel@mtkswgap22> References: <5846e8be319c4836808c8127d5bb51b7e999e896.1521794177.git.sean.wang@mediatek.com> <20180323094118.GC3417@piout.net> <20180323101505.GF3417@piout.net> <1521920188.31197.13.camel@mtkswgap22> <20180327151848.GD22441@piout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180327151848.GD22441@piout.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alexandre Belloni Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, sre@kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org, a.zummo@towertech.it, eddie.huang@mediatek.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 17:18 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 25/03/2018 at 03:36:28 +0800, Sean Wang wrote: > > just reply both replies in the same mail > > > > 1.) the power-off device is a part of rtc, use the same registers rtc > > has and thus it is put as child nodes under the node rtc to reflect the > > reality of characteristics the rtc has. > > > > Or am I wrong for a certain aspect in these opinions? > > > > My point is that it is also part of the PMIC so it may as well be > registers from the mfd driver which already registers a bunch of devices > instead of doing unusual stuff from the rtc driver. > > mt6397_rtc->regmap is mt6397_chip->regmap anyway. You have the added > benefit that if the RTC driver probe fails for some reason, you may > still be able to probe the reset driver. > > I don't tink there is any benefit having it as a child of the rtc > device. > really thanks! it's an optional solution I thought it 's fine and worth doing but so far I cannot fully make sure of whether mfd can accept two devices holding overlay IORESOURCE_MEM. Or do you like Rob's suggestion in [1] ? By which, I tend to embed a sub-device with platform_device_register_data api in the rtc probe() instead of treating it as a dt node under rtc node, but which seems something a bit violates your preferences :( Just confirm to know which way I should step into before I produce next version. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2018-March/012576.html > > 2) the other sub-functions for the same pmic already created its own > > dt-binding document belonged to its corresponding subsystem. Don't we > > really want to follow it them all? > > > > Ok, that's fine. >