Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] mfd: pm8x41: Naive function devices registration | From | "Ivan T. Ivanov" <> | Date | Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:34:59 +0300 |
| |
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 09:15 -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:32:51PM +0300, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > > From: "Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@mm-sol.com> > > > > Currently functions that exist in both the controller at the > > same address offset can not be specified with the same names. > > The terminology here is a bit confusing. When I read "controller", I > hear "SPMI controller",
Yes, it is badly worded.
> but this is really not a limitation of the SPMI > core, but rather a limitation of of_platform_populate() used by this > particular SPMI slave MFD driver. > > > Adding Unique Slave ID device address to prefix function > > device names fixes this. > > > > Function devices are SPMI devices, so register them on > > SPMI bus. > > This is a step backwards. The PMIC functions are not individually > addressable SPMI slaves, and as such should not be represented as > independent devices to the SPMI core. > > They really are subfunctions of a particular SPMI slave, and should be > modeled as children of that slave device. With this driver, we've > chosen to model the child devices as platform devices, but it could > also be a separate bus type.
I tend to agree. My reasoning was that they are part of the device which sits on the SPMI bus, so they should also be part of this bus.
Regards, Ivan
> > Josh >
| |