From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E85C11F65 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:42:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB4C61CFC for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:42:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233502AbhF3Ioi (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 04:44:38 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33280 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232904AbhF3Ioh (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 04:44:37 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0490C061756 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id j2so2539718wrs.12 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 01:42:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=iupOz/lM3nLVoO3qVSMzdJaUPPRF/UbP8kUJwTndH6g=; b=xrqheZzIL1v8Uc9aMLXQVjrsFhj8HDjnOhnmrWxQqFzW3XoY0hZRVyGSrMfJIqXOAs Vz+fLNceEdmBIpouUalw+j6EBPFwix206qZjcxGYLdoRXXcudaPucHdzMRlQi6Mv6its zEGmsYTQJS2fSiJqeWgbDeJ3i6ylt59cqqcbkjNl2bIzKL7gi5rttOEySAiKHjfEIneF acx35nb8IC/vClbjtjCgwDWlvbHF70SXT+9GGH7b1LgLMZGFMeEIxCOSmO/tWQPM1dNh JTgWnKmgx6B+ycLtJag5vs4o1OaKWRexnhhd5N5sfjG81YuIJ0Cr659HjMCouFYjnpxU IpZw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=iupOz/lM3nLVoO3qVSMzdJaUPPRF/UbP8kUJwTndH6g=; b=YXv6RRuzeSO7PRB2jFMT5ypUhB7jrWZ+9+BSf0CGdGZZgwrNLosq6UgaaFeosr7+FE +21HPfD7wkJNSzxVQ5A10Nx7wHdhsTB0Zzxq6XG4ss7gYEn9O+2uFzUSI0iuzoTRLIV8 lScqpomwx8uPmpCh/4UkxADBd9D+QsT1EcWfU4hy9+2vf4pGJrP43w/BYPRawVZ4pLI7 oVOdcWX2RQ/6NTuf6OQk5zUXquBSIsqORkHbwUdt1SLX6F+HrmFGADgUaPTePSL0XR8S 2IZ5NRhDEdVwdu3l5YBLmrb3HJt1bEEqCw2MpfMgZ7vNslc7IMsC0z/uuJtzHMHgPuEL asHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315ruLZT16l1wXSBGgmvnJ0PAkV8+A3h0wEwwDa+p8o76pFPc4G KqAYZAQVguxMiBGszBRg+CTgJw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyS7wtM5YlTm5jL8zfR/yjvrseRXbC9o6ifJ8dXHEnguNVfftuNFKBMF6Qi+YFo2s1xt6K0NA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6a81:: with SMTP id s1mr11797876wru.41.1625042527541; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 01:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell ([95.144.13.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d12sm18002529wri.77.2021.06.30.01.42.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 01:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:42:05 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Yunus Bas Cc: "stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: mfd-core: Change "Failed to locate of_node" warning to debug Message-ID: References: <20210616081949.26618-1-y.bas@phytec.de> <5a3f5fd82a391ade9a659338983e5efa7924210d.camel@phytec.de> <03cb3befabdda032b1ec9d97b4daac69fa23c759.camel@phytec.de> <5a718e7812f2ce46347ae94fda6175f38c65359e.camel@phytec.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5a718e7812f2ce46347ae94fda6175f38c65359e.camel@phytec.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > No. This is not about DA9061 or it's mfd_cell-entries at all. My > concern is about the general behaviour of the MFD-framework and how > mfd_cell entries with compatibles are initialized. I'm still not 100% sure I understand your use-case. Let's take this back to basics. What device are you trying to instantiate? A DA9062 derivative? > > Actually, this has served to highlight that your DTS is not correct. > > > > Why are some devices represented in DT and some aren't? > > > > If anything, I'm tempted to upgrade the info() print to warn(). > > > > Imagine only required parts of the MFD is connected to the designed > system and unrequired parts are not. In that case, fully describing the > MFD in the devicetree wouldn't represent the system at all. > > Actually it would make more sense to check if mfd_cell-entries with > compatibles are represented in the devicetree and add them after > matching. This way the warning would serve it's purpose. What do you > think of it? I think the DT and MFD should match, so again, the way I currently view this, doing it this way is just a different way to paper over the cracks. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog