Re: [PATCH v12 1/7] mfd: Add core driver for Nuvoton NCT6694

Guenter Roeck
2025-06-19T16:58:07Z

On 6/19/25 09:20, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 12:03:01AM +0800, Ming Yu wrote:
>> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> 於 2025年6月19日 週四 下午11:28寫道：
>>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> 於 2025年6月19日 週四 下午7:53寫道：
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> 於 2025年6月13日 週五 下午9:11寫道：
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> 於 2025年6月12日 週四 下午11:23寫道：
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for reviewing,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> 於 2025年6月12日 週四 下午10:00寫道：
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> +static const struct mfd_cell nct6694_devs[] = {
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 0),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 1),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 2),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 3),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 4),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 5),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 6),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 7),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 8),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 9),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 10),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 11),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 12),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 13),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 14),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 15),
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 0),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 1),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 2),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 3),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 4),
>>>>>>>>>>>> + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 5),
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why have we gone back to this silly numbering scheme?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What happened to using IDA in the child driver?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In a previous version, I tried to maintain a static IDA in each
>>>>>>>>>> sub-driver. However, I didn’t consider the case where multiple NCT6694
>>>>>>>>>> devices are bound to the same driver — in that case, the IDs are not
>>>>>>>>>> fixed and become unusable for my purpose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not sure I understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as I know, if I maintain the IDA in the sub-drivers and use
>>>>>>>> multiple MFD_CELL_NAME("nct6694-gpio") entries in the MFD, the first
>>>>>>>> NCT6694 device bound to the GPIO driver will receive IDs 0~15.
>>>>>>>> However, when a second NCT6694 device is connected to the system, it
>>>>>>>> will receive IDs 16~31.
>>>>>>>> Because of this behavior, I switched back to using platform_device->id.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each of the devices will probe once.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first one will be given 0, the second will be given 1, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you give multiple IDs to a single device bound to a driver?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The device exposes multiple peripherals — 16 GPIO controllers, 6 I2C
>>>>>> adapters, 2 CAN FD controllers, and 2 watchdog timers. Each peripheral
>>>>>> is independently addressable, has its own register region, and can
>>>>>> operate in isolation. The IDs are used to distinguish between these
>>>>>> instances.
>>>>>> For example, the GPIO driver will be probed 16 times, allocating 16
>>>>>> separate gpio_chip instances to control 8 GPIO lines each.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If another device binds to this driver, it is expected to expose
>>>>>> peripherals with the same structure and behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still don't see why having a per-device IDA wouldn't render each
>>>>> probed device with its own ID. Just as you have above.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For example, when the MFD driver and the I2C sub-driver are loaded,
>>>> connecting the first NCT6694 USB device to the system results in 6
>>>> nct6694-i2c platform devices being created and bound to the
>>>> i2c-nct6694 driver. These devices receive IDs 0 through 5 via the IDA.
>>>>
>>>> However, when a second NCT6694 USB device is connected, its
>>>> corresponding nct6694-i2c platform devices receive IDs 6 through 11 —
>>>> instead of 0 through 5 as I originally expected.
>>>>
>>>> If I've misunderstood something, please feel free to correct me. Thank you!
>>>
>>> In the code above you register 6 I2C devices. Each device will be
>>> assigned a platform ID 0 through 5. The .probe() function in the I2C
>>> driver will be executed 6 times. In each of those calls to .probe(),
>>> instead of pre-allocating a contiguous assignment of IDs here, you
>>> should be able to use IDA in .probe() to allocate those same device IDs
>>> 0 through 5.
>>>
>>> What am I missing here?
>>>
>>
>> You're absolutely right in the scenario where a single NCT6694 device
>> is present. However, I’m wondering how we should handle the case where
>> a second or even third NCT6694 device is bound to the same MFD driver.
>> In that situation, the sub-drivers using a static IDA will continue
>> allocating increasing IDs, rather than restarting from 0 for each
>> device. How should this be handled?
>
> What is wrong with increasing ids? The id value means nothing, they
> just have to be unique.
>

Unless they are used in the client driver as index into an array, as in
"this is the Nth instance of this device for this chip". There has to be
_some_ means to pass N to the client driver.

Guenter