From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753823Ab3ISMct (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:32:49 -0400 Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:18168 "EHLO hqemgate16.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753659Ab3ISMcr (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:32:47 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:32:46 -0700 Message-ID: <523AF3F5.1030909@nvidia.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:24:13 +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> <523AEE07.9090405@nvidia.com> <20130919122240.GI22389@lee--X1> In-Reply-To: <20130919122240.GI22389@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 05:52 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>> 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. > 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? > There is 7 DCDC step down and 10 LDOs. It is more readable if sub-module properties are grouped and defined on different sub-node in place of having this in single parent node.