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

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

Hi Andreas!

First of all, thanks for taking a look at this!

On 10/10/2025 16:03, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> 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.

Interesting idea.

I suppose you mean something like implementing custom remap_read() and 
regmap_write() - which would practically select the I2C adapter to use 
based on the register address - and then doing same thing as the 
regmap_i2c_smbus_i2c_write() / regmap_i2c_smbus_i2c_read() do?

I suppose this would mean duplicating the functionality provided by the 
regmap_i2c_smbus_i2c_write() and the regmap_i2c_smbus_i2c_read(), which 
are static. It'd also mean we'll lose the 1 to 1 mapping between the 
register addresses in driver and addresses in the data-sheet. I agree 
this wouldn't be such a huge thing if we used offset like 0x100 though.

I am still leaning towards using two different regmaps though, as it 
seems like a more 'standard' solution. I assume people are more familiar 
with providing platform data to "MFD sub drivers" than custom regmaps 
accessing different I2C slave addresses.

But yeah, thanks for this suggestion! It opened up some completely new 
paths in my brains! :)

Yours,
	-- Matti