Re: [RFC PATCH 06/13] mfd: bd71828: Support ROHM BD72720

[Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 15:09:07 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> +static int bd72720_get_secondary_regmap(struct i2c_client *i2c,  
> > 
> > Does this 'secondary' have a specific purpose or a better name?  
> 
> I am not entirely sure. When I asked this from the designers they just 
> told me that they needed more than 255 registers so they added another 
> slave address... (I'm not sure what would have been wrong with using a 
> page register). So, I assume they just placed stuff that didn't fit in 
> first 255 register there. But yeah, it looks like most of the registers 
> there are related to the charger. So, perhaps it isn't completely 
> misleading to use "charger regmap"? The data-sheet seems to be just 
> using "Register map 1" and "Register map 2" in the tables listing these 
> registers. I kind of like using something which maps easily to the 
> data-sheet, but I really have no strong opinion on this.

just another idea: What about one regmap with custom functions covering
both these adresses? Maybe that could even be added to the regmap
functionality, maybe with a 0x100 offset for the second range.
That way the rest of the code only needs to real with one regmap
and properly defined registers.

Regards,
Andreas