[PATCH 0/6] mfd: sc27xx: Use MFD cells and devm_mfd_add_devices()

[PATCH 0/6] mfd: sc27xx: Use MFD cells and devm_mfd_add_devices()

[Otto Pflüger]

These changes resulted from the need to decouple the the Linux device
driver hierarchy from the device tree bindings for two different series
introducing regulator [1] and poweroff [2] support for the SC2730 PMIC.

There are different PMICs in the SC27xx series, including SC2730 and
SC2731. These have a lot of similarities, but some differences too. For
instance, they contain compatible RTC blocks, but completely different
sets of regulators.

On the Linux side, each PMIC block needs its own driver. The MFD driver
currently uses devm_of_platform_populate() to load the drivers for the
components of the PMIC, which only works when each component has its own
sub-node with a "compatible" property that is used to select a driver
for the device.

When viewed from the device tree side, the parent node representing the
PMIC already contains a "compatible" property that distinguishes the
different PMICs. While the device tree bindings currently do require a
separate "compatible" property for each sub-node (ADC, fuel gauge,
regulators, ...), this is essentially redundant since the node name and
the parent compatible uniquely identify the component. Moreover, some
parts of the PMIC such as the poweroff/reboot controller do not even
need a corresponding device tree node.

Change the MFD driver to use MFD cells instead, which allows it to
instantiate sub-devices both with and without device tree nodes.
Devices that do not have a separate device tree node with its own
"compatible" property can be matched by their platform device ID.
Use this to hook up the existing SC2731 poweroff and regulator drivers,
which were previously not loaded at all due to the lack of an ID table.

In the device tree bindings, deprecate the redundant "compatible"
property for the "regulators" node. While it might make sense to do this
for the other components too, there are a few reasons to only change the
regulators at this point:
 - The regulators node is special since it is not as independent as the
   other components. For instance, it is the only child node of the PMIC
   that does not have a "reg" property. The set of regulators also
   differs much more between different PMIC models than the register
   layout of the other components.
 - We already have some other PMICs where only the regulators are
   treated specially like this, such as MediaTek MT6359 and MT6370.
 - It was suggested to remove the "compatible" property for the new
   SC2730 regulator bindings I am preparing in [2]. The bindings for
   the other components do not need any significant changes at the
   moment.
 - Unlike the poweroff and regulator components, the other parts are
   already working with the existing drivers and bindings.

For the other components that still have a "compatible" property used
for matching MFD cells, ensure that an SC2730-specific compatible is
defined in the bindings so that it can be listed in the SC2730-specific
device table in the MFD driver.

Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250926-sc2730-reboot-v1-0-62ebfd3d31bb@abscue.de/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260220-sc2730-regulators-v1-0-3f2bbc9ecf14@abscue.de/

---
Otto Pflüger (6):
      dt-bindings: rtc: sc2731: Add compatible for SC2730
      dt-bindings: leds: sc2731: Add compatible for SC2730
      regulator: dt-bindings: sc2731: Deprecate compatible property
      mfd: sprd-sc27xx: Switch to devm_mfd_add_devices()
      power: reset: sc27xx: Add platform_device_id table
      regulator: sc2731: Add platform_device_id table

 .../devicetree/bindings/leds/sprd,sc2731-bltc.yaml |  7 ++++-
 .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/sprd,sc2731.yaml       |  2 --
 .../bindings/regulator/sprd,sc2731-regulator.yaml  |  4 +--
 .../devicetree/bindings/rtc/sprd,sc2731-rtc.yaml   |  7 ++++-
 drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c                      | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++-
 drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c              |  8 ++++++
 drivers/regulator/sc2731-regulator.c               | 10 ++++++-
 7 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: d4906ae14a5f136ceb671bb14cedbf13fa560da6
change-id: 20260221-sc27xx-mfd-cells-dab7905f3aae

Best regards,
-- 
Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>

[PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: rtc: sc2731: Add compatible for SC2730

[Otto Pflüger]

The RTC block found in the SC2730 PMIC is compatible with the one found
in the SC2731 PMIC.

Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sprd,sc2731-rtc.yaml | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sprd,sc2731-rtc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sprd,sc2731-rtc.yaml
index 5756f617df36..1deae2f4f09d 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sprd,sc2731-rtc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sprd,sc2731-rtc.yaml
@@ -13,7 +13,12 @@ maintainers:
 
 properties:
   compatible:
-    const: sprd,sc2731-rtc
+    oneOf:
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - sprd,sc2730-rtc
+          - const: sprd,sc2731-rtc
+      - const: sprd,sc2731-rtc
 
   reg:
     maxItems: 1

-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: rtc: sc2731: Add compatible for SC2730

[Rob Herring (Arm)]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:16:45 +0100, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> The RTC block found in the SC2730 PMIC is compatible with the one found
> in the SC2731 PMIC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/sprd,sc2731-rtc.yaml | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>

[PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: leds: sc2731: Add compatible for SC2730

[Otto Pflüger]

The LED controller found in the SC2730 PMIC is compatible with the one
found in the SC2731 PMIC.

Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/sprd,sc2731-bltc.yaml | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/sprd,sc2731-bltc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/sprd,sc2731-bltc.yaml
index 97535d6dc47a..2ae5cc31e623 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/sprd,sc2731-bltc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/sprd,sc2731-bltc.yaml
@@ -18,7 +18,12 @@ description: |
 
 properties:
   compatible:
-    const: sprd,sc2731-bltc
+    oneOf:
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - sprd,sc2730-bltc
+          - const: sprd,sc2731-bltc
+      - const: sprd,sc2731-bltc
 
   reg:
     maxItems: 1

-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: leds: sc2731: Add compatible for SC2730

[Rob Herring (Arm)]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:16:46 +0100, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> The LED controller found in the SC2730 PMIC is compatible with the one
> found in the SC2731 PMIC.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/leds/sprd,sc2731-bltc.yaml | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>

Re: (subset) [PATCH 2/6] dt-bindings: leds: sc2731: Add compatible for SC2730

[Lee Jones]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:16:46 +0100, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> The LED controller found in the SC2730 PMIC is compatible with the one
> found in the SC2731 PMIC.
> 
> 

Applied, thanks!

[2/6] dt-bindings: leds: sc2731: Add compatible for SC2730
      commit: fc2dfc3392ec52f12d8d6f16a8b13cca838d8bee

--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

[PATCH 3/6] regulator: dt-bindings: sc2731: Deprecate compatible property

[Otto Pflüger]

The node containing the regulators is always a child of the main PMIC
node, which already has a compatible property identifying the type of
PMIC. This makes the compatible in the child node redundant. Mark it
as deprecated and remove it from the required property list and the
examples.

Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/sprd,sc2731.yaml                | 2 --
 .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/sprd,sc2731-regulator.yaml          | 4 +---
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/sprd,sc2731.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/sprd,sc2731.yaml
index b023e1ef8d3c..12b3258daef5 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/sprd,sc2731.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/sprd,sc2731.yaml
@@ -222,8 +222,6 @@ examples:
         };
 
         regulators {
-          compatible = "sprd,sc2731-regulator";
-
           BUCK_CPU0 {
             regulator-name = "vddarm0";
             regulator-min-microvolt = <400000>;
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/sprd,sc2731-regulator.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/sprd,sc2731-regulator.yaml
index 9bd752bab68e..7af20a4781b7 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/sprd,sc2731-regulator.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/sprd,sc2731-regulator.yaml
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ description: |
 
 properties:
   compatible:
+    deprecated: true
     const: sprd,sc2731-regulator
 
 patternProperties:
@@ -39,8 +40,5 @@ patternProperties:
     $ref: regulator.yaml#
     unevaluatedProperties: false
 
-required:
-  - compatible
-
 additionalProperties: false
 ...

-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH 3/6] regulator: dt-bindings: sc2731: Deprecate compatible property

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 410 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 02:16:47PM +0100, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> The node containing the regulators is always a child of the main PMIC
> node, which already has a compatible property identifying the type of
> PMIC. This makes the compatible in the child node redundant. Mark it
> as deprecated and remove it from the required property list and the
> examples.

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/6] regulator: dt-bindings: sc2731: Deprecate compatible property

[Rob Herring (Arm)]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:16:47 +0100, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> The node containing the regulators is always a child of the main PMIC
> node, which already has a compatible property identifying the type of
> PMIC. This makes the compatible in the child node redundant. Mark it
> as deprecated and remove it from the required property list and the
> examples.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/sprd,sc2731.yaml                | 2 --
>  .../devicetree/bindings/regulator/sprd,sc2731-regulator.yaml          | 4 +---
>  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 

Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>

[PATCH 4/6] mfd: sprd-sc27xx: Switch to devm_mfd_add_devices()

[Otto Pflüger]

To allow instantiating subdevices such as the regulator and poweroff
devices that do not have corresponding device tree nodes with a
"compatible" property, use devm_mfd_add_devices() with MFD cells instead
of devm_of_platform_populate(). Since different PMICs in the SC27xx
series contain different components, use separate MFD cell tables for
each PMIC model. Define cells for all components that have upstream
drivers at this point.

Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
---
 drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
index d6b4350779e6..57941bec4c2e 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
@@ -48,6 +48,31 @@ struct sprd_pmic_data {
 	u32 irq_base;
 	u32 num_irqs;
 	u32 charger_det;
+	const struct mfd_cell *cells;
+	int num_cells;
+};
+
+static const struct mfd_cell sc2730_devices[] = {
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-adc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-adc"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-bltc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-bltc"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-efuse", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-efuse"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-eic", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-eic"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-fgu", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-fgu"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-rtc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-rtc"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-vibrator", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-vibrator"),
+};
+
+static const struct mfd_cell sc2731_devices[] = {
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-adc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-adc"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-bltc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-bltc"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-charger", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-charger"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-efuse", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-efuse"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-eic", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-eic"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-fgu", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-fgu"),
+	MFD_CELL_NAME("sc2731-poweroff"),
+	MFD_CELL_NAME("sc2731-regulator"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-rtc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-rtc"),
+	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-vibrator", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-vibrator"),
 };
 
 /*
@@ -59,12 +84,16 @@ static const struct sprd_pmic_data sc2730_data = {
 	.irq_base = SPRD_SC2730_IRQ_BASE,
 	.num_irqs = SPRD_SC2730_IRQ_NUMS,
 	.charger_det = SPRD_SC2730_CHG_DET,
+	.cells = sc2730_devices,
+	.num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(sc2730_devices),
 };
 
 static const struct sprd_pmic_data sc2731_data = {
 	.irq_base = SPRD_SC2731_IRQ_BASE,
 	.num_irqs = SPRD_SC2731_IRQ_NUMS,
 	.charger_det = SPRD_SC2731_CHG_DET,
+	.cells = sc2731_devices,
+	.num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(sc2731_devices),
 };
 
 enum usb_charger_type sprd_pmic_detect_charger_type(struct device *dev)
@@ -204,7 +233,9 @@ static int sprd_pmic_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	ret = devm_of_platform_populate(&spi->dev);
+	ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&spi->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
+				   pdata->cells, pdata->num_cells, NULL, 0,
+				   regmap_irq_get_domain(ddata->irq_data));
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&spi->dev, "Failed to populate sub-devices %d\n", ret);
 		return ret;

-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: sprd-sc27xx: Switch to devm_mfd_add_devices()

[Lee Jones]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2026, Otto Pflüger wrote:

> To allow instantiating subdevices such as the regulator and poweroff
> devices that do not have corresponding device tree nodes with a
> "compatible" property, use devm_mfd_add_devices() with MFD cells instead
> of devm_of_platform_populate(). Since different PMICs in the SC27xx
> series contain different components, use separate MFD cell tables for
> each PMIC model. Define cells for all components that have upstream
> drivers at this point.

We're not passing one device registration API's data (MFD)
through another (Device Tree).

Pass an identifier through and match on that instead.

Look at how all of the other drivers in MFD do it.

> Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> index d6b4350779e6..57941bec4c2e 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/sprd-sc27xx-spi.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,31 @@ struct sprd_pmic_data {
>  	u32 irq_base;
>  	u32 num_irqs;
>  	u32 charger_det;
> +	const struct mfd_cell *cells;
> +	int num_cells;
> +};
> +
> +static const struct mfd_cell sc2730_devices[] = {
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-adc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-adc"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-bltc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-bltc"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-efuse", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-efuse"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-eic", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-eic"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-fgu", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-fgu"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-rtc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-rtc"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-vibrator", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-vibrator"),
> +};
> +
> +static const struct mfd_cell sc2731_devices[] = {
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-adc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-adc"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-bltc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-bltc"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-charger", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-charger"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-efuse", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-efuse"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-eic", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-eic"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-fgu", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-fgu"),
> +	MFD_CELL_NAME("sc2731-poweroff"),
> +	MFD_CELL_NAME("sc2731-regulator"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-rtc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-rtc"),
> +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-vibrator", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-vibrator"),
>  };
>  
>  /*
> @@ -59,12 +84,16 @@ static const struct sprd_pmic_data sc2730_data = {
>  	.irq_base = SPRD_SC2730_IRQ_BASE,
>  	.num_irqs = SPRD_SC2730_IRQ_NUMS,
>  	.charger_det = SPRD_SC2730_CHG_DET,
> +	.cells = sc2730_devices,
> +	.num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(sc2730_devices),
>  };
>  
>  static const struct sprd_pmic_data sc2731_data = {
>  	.irq_base = SPRD_SC2731_IRQ_BASE,
>  	.num_irqs = SPRD_SC2731_IRQ_NUMS,
>  	.charger_det = SPRD_SC2731_CHG_DET,
> +	.cells = sc2731_devices,
> +	.num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(sc2731_devices),
>  };
>  
>  enum usb_charger_type sprd_pmic_detect_charger_type(struct device *dev)
> @@ -204,7 +233,9 @@ static int sprd_pmic_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = devm_of_platform_populate(&spi->dev);
> +	ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(&spi->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
> +				   pdata->cells, pdata->num_cells, NULL, 0,
> +				   regmap_irq_get_domain(ddata->irq_data));
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(&spi->dev, "Failed to populate sub-devices %d\n", ret);
>  		return ret;
> 
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

Re: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: sprd-sc27xx: Switch to devm_mfd_add_devices()

[Otto Pflüger]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 06:58:56PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2026, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> 
> > To allow instantiating subdevices such as the regulator and poweroff
> > devices that do not have corresponding device tree nodes with a
> > "compatible" property, use devm_mfd_add_devices() with MFD cells instead
> > of devm_of_platform_populate(). Since different PMICs in the SC27xx
> > series contain different components, use separate MFD cell tables for
> > each PMIC model. Define cells for all components that have upstream
> > drivers at this point.
> 
> We're not passing one device registration API's data (MFD)
> through another (Device Tree).
> 
> Pass an identifier through and match on that instead.
> 
> Look at how all of the other drivers in MFD do it.
>
> [...]
> > +static const struct mfd_cell sc2730_devices[] = {
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-adc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-adc"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-bltc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-bltc"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-efuse", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-efuse"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-eic", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-eic"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-fgu", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-fgu"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-rtc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-rtc"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-vibrator", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-vibrator"),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct mfd_cell sc2731_devices[] = {
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-adc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-adc"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-bltc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-bltc"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-charger", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-charger"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-efuse", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-efuse"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-eic", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-eic"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-fgu", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-fgu"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_NAME("sc2731-poweroff"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_NAME("sc2731-regulator"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-rtc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-rtc"),
> > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-vibrator", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-vibrator"),
> >  };

Assuming that these tables are the "registration API's data", I don't
see where it is being passed through the device tree. The device tree
contains nodes for some of these MFD components, and I've listed their
compatibles here so that the MFD core finds these nodes and registers
them with the corresponding devices (which was previously done
automatically by devm_of_platform_populate).

> >  
> >  /*
> > @@ -59,12 +84,16 @@ static const struct sprd_pmic_data sc2730_data = {
> >  	.irq_base = SPRD_SC2730_IRQ_BASE,
> >  	.num_irqs = SPRD_SC2730_IRQ_NUMS,
> >  	.charger_det = SPRD_SC2730_CHG_DET,
> > +	.cells = sc2730_devices,
> > +	.num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(sc2730_devices),
> >  };
> >  
> >  static const struct sprd_pmic_data sc2731_data = {
> >  	.irq_base = SPRD_SC2731_IRQ_BASE,
> >  	.num_irqs = SPRD_SC2731_IRQ_NUMS,
> >  	.charger_det = SPRD_SC2731_CHG_DET,
> > +	.cells = sc2731_devices,
> > +	.num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(sc2731_devices),
> >  };

Here I am simply referencing the tables above in the device-specific
MFD data. These structs containing device-specific data already exist,
they are private to the MFD driver, and I wouldn't consider them part
of the device tree.

I've looked at mt6397-core.c and it seems to be doing the exact same
thing with its "struct chip_data". Some other drivers use a numeric ID
for this purpose, but how would that be different from a pointer as long
as it identifies the same data within the MFD driver?

Could you clarify what should be changed?

Re: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: sprd-sc27xx: Switch to devm_mfd_add_devices()

[Lee Jones]

> Could you clarify what should be changed?

Sure.

> On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 06:58:56PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2026, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> > 
> > > To allow instantiating subdevices such as the regulator and poweroff
> > > devices that do not have corresponding device tree nodes with a
> > > "compatible" property, use devm_mfd_add_devices() with MFD cells instead
> > > of devm_of_platform_populate(). Since different PMICs in the SC27xx
> > > series contain different components, use separate MFD cell tables for
> > > each PMIC model. Define cells for all components that have upstream
> > > drivers at this point.
> > 
> > We're not passing one device registration API's data (MFD)
> > through another (Device Tree).
> > 
> > Pass an identifier through and match on that instead.
> > 
> > Look at how all of the other drivers in MFD do it.
> >
> > [...]
> > > +static const struct mfd_cell sc2730_devices[] = {
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-adc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-adc"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-bltc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-bltc"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-efuse", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-efuse"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-eic", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-eic"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-fgu", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-fgu"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-rtc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-rtc"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2730-vibrator", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2730-vibrator"),
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct mfd_cell sc2731_devices[] = {
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-adc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-adc"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-bltc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-bltc"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-charger", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-charger"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-efuse", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-efuse"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-eic", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-eic"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-fgu", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-fgu"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_NAME("sc2731-poweroff"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_NAME("sc2731-regulator"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-rtc", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-rtc"),
> > > +	MFD_CELL_OF("sc2731-vibrator", NULL, NULL, 0, 0, "sprd,sc2731-vibrator"),
> > >  };
> 
> Assuming that these tables are the "registration API's data", I don't
> see where it is being passed through the device tree. The device tree
> contains nodes for some of these MFD components, and I've listed their
> compatibles here so that the MFD core finds these nodes and registers
> them with the corresponding devices (which was previously done
> automatically by devm_of_platform_populate).
> 
> > >  
> > >  /*
> > > @@ -59,12 +84,16 @@ static const struct sprd_pmic_data sc2730_data = {
> > >  	.irq_base = SPRD_SC2730_IRQ_BASE,
> > >  	.num_irqs = SPRD_SC2730_IRQ_NUMS,
> > >  	.charger_det = SPRD_SC2730_CHG_DET,
> > > +	.cells = sc2730_devices,
> > > +	.num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(sc2730_devices),

Remove these from here.

Either replace them with an ID that you can match on or stop passing
'sc2730_data' through .data and pass an ID through there instead.  Then
choose 'sc2730_data' and 'sc2730_devices' in an switch() statement
instead, just like the vast majority of existing MFD drivers do.

> > >  };
> > >  
> > >  static const struct sprd_pmic_data sc2731_data = {
> > >  	.irq_base = SPRD_SC2731_IRQ_BASE,
> > >  	.num_irqs = SPRD_SC2731_IRQ_NUMS,
> > >  	.charger_det = SPRD_SC2731_CHG_DET,
> > > +	.cells = sc2731_devices,
> > > +	.num_cells = ARRAY_SIZE(sc2731_devices),
> > >  };
> 
> Here I am simply referencing the tables above in the device-specific
> MFD data. These structs containing device-specific data already exist,
> they are private to the MFD driver, and I wouldn't consider them part
> of the device tree.
> 
> I've looked at mt6397-core.c and it seems to be doing the exact same
> thing with its "struct chip_data".

That was a momentary oversight.  It's also passing a driver-level
call-back which I despise.  However, past mistakes are not good
justifications for new ones.

> Some other drivers use a numeric ID
> for this purpose, but how would that be different from a pointer as long
> as it identifies the same data within the MFD driver?

The point is that sc2731_data->cells would be passed through the Device
Tree's .data attribute, which is not allowed.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

[PATCH 5/6] power: reset: sc27xx: Add platform_device_id table

[Otto Pflüger]

Make the poweroff driver for SC27xx-series PMICs probe automatically.
Since the device representing the poweroff functionality of the SC27xx
PMIC is not supposed to have a dedicated device tree node without any
corresponding DT resources [1], an of_device_id table cannot be used
here. Instead, use a platform_device_id table to match the poweroff
sub-device instantiated by the parent MFD driver.

Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251002025344.GA2958334-robh@kernel.org/
---
 drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c b/drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c
index 393bd1c33b73..6376706bf561 100644
--- a/drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c
+++ b/drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/cpu.h>
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 #include <linux/pm.h>
@@ -70,11 +71,18 @@ static int sc27xx_poweroff_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static const struct platform_device_id sc27xx_poweroff_id_table[] = {
+	{ "sc2731-poweroff" },
+	{ }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, sc27xx_poweroff_id_table);
+
 static struct platform_driver sc27xx_poweroff_driver = {
 	.probe = sc27xx_poweroff_probe,
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "sc27xx-poweroff",
 	},
+	.id_table = sc27xx_poweroff_id_table,
 };
 module_platform_driver(sc27xx_poweroff_driver);
 

-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH 5/6] power: reset: sc27xx: Add platform_device_id table

[Sebastian Reichel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1848 bytes --]

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 02:16:49PM +0100, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> Make the poweroff driver for SC27xx-series PMICs probe automatically.
> Since the device representing the poweroff functionality of the SC27xx
> PMIC is not supposed to have a dedicated device tree node without any
> corresponding DT resources [1], an of_device_id table cannot be used
> here. Instead, use a platform_device_id table to match the poweroff
> sub-device instantiated by the parent MFD driver.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251002025344.GA2958334-robh@kernel.org/
> ---

Acked-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.com>

-- Sebastian

>  drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c b/drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c
> index 393bd1c33b73..6376706bf561 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/reset/sc27xx-poweroff.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/cpu.h>
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>  #include <linux/pm.h>
> @@ -70,11 +71,18 @@ static int sc27xx_poweroff_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static const struct platform_device_id sc27xx_poweroff_id_table[] = {
> +	{ "sc2731-poweroff" },
> +	{ }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, sc27xx_poweroff_id_table);
> +
>  static struct platform_driver sc27xx_poweroff_driver = {
>  	.probe = sc27xx_poweroff_probe,
>  	.driver = {
>  		.name = "sc27xx-poweroff",
>  	},
> +	.id_table = sc27xx_poweroff_id_table,
>  };
>  module_platform_driver(sc27xx_poweroff_driver);
>  
> 
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH 6/6] regulator: sc2731: Add platform_device_id table

[Otto Pflüger]

Make the regulator driver for the SC2731 PMIC probe automatically. Using
a platform_device_id table instead of DT compatible matching avoids the
need for a separate compatible property in the "regulators" node, which
simplifies the DT bindings and makes the parent MFD device responsible
for selecting the correct regulator driver for the PMIC.

However, this means that the regulator device is not automatically
associated with the "regulators" node. Tell the regulator core to
perform device tree lookups using the parent MFD device instead of
the regulator sub-device and set the .regulators_node member in all
regulator definitions so that the "regulators" sub-node is used.

Signed-off-by: Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@abscue.de>
---
 drivers/regulator/sc2731-regulator.c | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/sc2731-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/sc2731-regulator.c
index 5447e1a47d15..93c8156c5110 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/sc2731-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/sc2731-regulator.c
@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ static const struct regulator_ops sc2731_regu_linear_ops = {
 			  vstep, vmin, vmax) {			\
 	.name			= #_id,				\
 	.of_match		= of_match_ptr(#_id),		\
+	.regulators_node	= of_match_ptr("regulators"),	\
 	.ops			= &sc2731_regu_linear_ops,	\
 	.type			= REGULATOR_VOLTAGE,		\
 	.id			= SC2731_##_id,			\
@@ -226,7 +227,7 @@ static int sc2731_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	config.dev = &pdev->dev;
+	config.dev = pdev->dev.parent;
 	config.regmap = regmap;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(regulators); i++) {
@@ -242,12 +243,19 @@ static int sc2731_regulator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static const struct platform_device_id sc2731_regulator_id_table[] = {
+	{ "sc2731-regulator" },
+	{ }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, sc2731_regulator_id_table);
+
 static struct platform_driver sc2731_regulator_driver = {
 	.driver = {
 		.name = "sc27xx-regulator",
 		.probe_type = PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS,
 	},
 	.probe = sc2731_regulator_probe,
+	.id_table = sc2731_regulator_id_table,
 };
 
 module_platform_driver(sc2731_regulator_driver);

-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH 6/6] regulator: sc2731: Add platform_device_id table

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 468 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 02:16:50PM +0100, Otto Pflüger wrote:
> Make the regulator driver for the SC2731 PMIC probe automatically. Using
> a platform_device_id table instead of DT compatible matching avoids the
> need for a separate compatible property in the "regulators" node, which
> simplifies the DT bindings and makes the parent MFD device responsible
> for selecting the correct regulator driver for the PMIC.

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]