From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:00:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20130919120051.GG22389@lee--X1> References: <1379579392-1794-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20130919083050.GH16984@lee--X1> <20130919115501.GM21013@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130919115501.GM21013-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Laxman Dewangan , sameo-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org, rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org, ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org, rob-VoJi6FS/r0vR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:30:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: >=20 > > I'm not entirely sure this is what Mark was saying. I think he was > > complaining about the existence of the sub-nodes rather than how th= e > > MFD Core assigns their of_node. My take is that the chip is really = a > > single device which provides different bits of functionality. To br= eak > > that functionality up and disperse the drivers into various subsyst= ems > > is a Linuxisum. By providing each functional block with its own nod= e > > you're describing how we do things in Linux, rather than specifying= a > > single node for the AS3722 which would probably be the norm. >=20 > Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of. >=20 > > Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be wort= h > > breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they d= o, > > then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you d= o > > not require sub-nodes. The MFD core will ensure the sub-devices are > > probed and there is no requirement for the of_node to be assigned. >=20 > You do see some reusable IP blocks (like the regualtors on the wm831x > PMICs for example, they're repeated blocks) which can be reused but > generally they have a register base as part of the binding. Personal= ly > if it's just a property or two I'd probably just put them on the root > node for the device. Agreed. Besides, there doesn't seem to be *any* sub-device properties defined in the binding document. So what are you trying to achieve with the child nodes? --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html