From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753486Ab3ISMHa (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:07:30 -0400 Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:9292 "EHLO hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752160Ab3ISMH2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:07:28 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp08.nvidia.com on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:04:04 -0700 Message-ID: <523AEE07.9090405@nvidia.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:58:55 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Jones CC: Mark Brown , "sameo@linux.intel.com" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "pawel.moll@arm.com" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "swarren@wwwdotorg.org" , "ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk" , "rob@landley.net" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices References: <1379579392-1794-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20130919083050.GH16984@lee--X1> <20130919115501.GM21013@sirena.org.uk> <20130919120051.GG22389@lee--X1> In-Reply-To: <20130919120051.GG22389@lee--X1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 19 September 2013 05:30 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:30:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: >> >>> 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 the >>> MFD Core assigns their of_node. My take is that the chip is really a >>> single device which provides different bits of functionality. To break >>> that functionality up and disperse the drivers into various subsystems >>> is a Linuxisum. By providing each functional block with its own node >>> you're describing how we do things in Linux, rather than specifying a >>> single node for the AS3722 which would probably be the norm. >> Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of. >> >>> Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be worth >>> 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 are >>> 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 wm831x >> PMICs for example, they're repeated blocks) which can be reused but >> generally they have a register base as part of the binding. Personally >> 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? > I wanted to have the DT like: as3722 { compatible = "ams,as3722"; reg = <0x40>; #interrupt-controller; ..... regulators { ldo1-in-supply = <..>; .... sd0 { regulator-name = "vdd-cpu"; ..... }; sd1 { regulator-name = "vdd-ddr"; ..... }; .... }; }; 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.