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 13:22:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20130919122240.GI22389@lee--X1> References: <1379579392-1794-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20130919083050.GH16984@lee--X1> <20130919115501.GM21013@sirena.org.uk> <20130919120051.GG22389@lee--X1> <523AEE07.9090405@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <523AEE07.9090405-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Laxman Dewangan Cc: Mark Brown , "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 > >>>Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be wor= th > >>>breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they = do, > >>>then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you = do > >>>not require sub-nodes. The MFD core will ensure the sub-devices ar= e > >>>probed and there is no requirement for the of_node to be assigned. > >>You do see some reusable IP blocks (like the regualtors on the wm83= 1x > >>PMICs for example, they're repeated blocks) which can be reused but > >>generally they have a register base as part of the binding. Person= ally > >>if it's just a property or two I'd probably just put them on the ro= ot > >>node for the device. > >Agreed. Besides, there doesn't seem to be *any* sub-device propertie= s > >defined in the binding document. So what are you trying to achieve > >with the child nodes? >=20 > I wanted to have the DT like: >=20 > as3722 { > compatible =3D "ams,as3722"; > reg =3D <0x40>; >=20 > #interrupt-controller; > ..... >=20 >=20 > regulators { > ldo1-in-supply =3D <..>; > .... > sd0 { > regulator-name =3D "vdd-cpu"; > ..... > }; > sd1 { > regulator-name =3D "vdd-ddr"; > ..... > }; > .... > }; > }; >=20 > And regulator driver should get the regulator node by their > pdev->dev.of_node. > Currently, in most of driver, we are having the code on regulator > driver to get "regulators" node from parent node which I want to > avoid. Ah, I see. Yes, I believe the regulators should have their own node, complete with a compatible string. To have each regulator listed separately in the parent node seems a little messy. Just out of interest, how many regulators are we talking about here? --=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