Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:52:46 +0530 | From | Laxman Dewangan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] mfd: add support for AMS AS3722 PMIC |
| |
On Tuesday 17 September 2013 05:33 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > On Tuesday 17 September 2013 04:54 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >> * PGP Signed by an unknown key >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:15:35PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> >>> +MFD driver adds following mfd devices with their compatible values: >>> +as3722-gpio: The compatible value of this as3722 gpio driver is >>> + "ams,as3722-gpio"; >>> +as3722-regulator: The compatible value of this as3722 regulator >>> driver is >>> + "ams,as3722-regulator"; >>> +as3722-rtc: The compatible value of this as3722 rtc driver is >>> + "ams,as3722-rtc"; >>> +as3722-adc: The compatible value of this as3722 adc driver is >>> + "ams,as3722-adc"; >>> +as3722-power-off: he compatible value of this as3722 power off >>> driver is >>> + "ams,as3722-power-off". >> Personally I find this to be exposing implementation details of Linux - >> unless there is something reusable about the binding that'd allow it to >> be used to describe the contents of the chip the subnodes really aren't >> adding any information that wasn't present from just knowing the parent >> chip. If there were relocatable IPs it'd be a bit different. > > Ok, then can we fix the the sub node name and parse these when adding > mfd devices and set the pdev->dev.of_node of child devices. > Like > parent_node { > ... > child1_node { > ... > }; > > child1_node { Sorry, just wanted to say child2_node here.
> ... > }; > }; > > > and fix the node name of child1 and child2 and have this as part of > mfd-cell's of_node_name. > So when we add the mfd devices, we look for these fixed name and if > matches then set the dev->of_node for that child sub device. > > This will avoid the code for getting child node pointer from parent > node in each driver. We fix the child node name in any case. > >
| |