Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:01:01 -0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator | From | Javier Martinez Canillas <> |
| |
Hello John,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:46 AM, John Crispin <blogic@openwrt.org> wrote: > > > On 25/01/2016 14:25, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas >> <javier@dowhile0.org> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> >>> In fact, the kernel is currently not matching the compatible, it is >>> only matching because you provided a .of_compatible is provided in the >>> mfd_cell. >>> >> >> Sorry my English was a bit off in this paragraph... >> >> I tried to say that OF does not traverse MFD sub-devices and lookups a >> device driver that matches the compatible automatically since a MFD >> device is not a bus. Currently it is only trying to match a compatible >> string because the mfd_cell has a .of_compatible set so an of_node is >> assigned on mfd_add_device(). >> >> But it is failing to match because no OF device table is provided and >> the platform bus match callback is falling back to the driver .name to >> match so the compatible is not really used as Mark said. >> >> Best regards, >> Javier >> > > Hi, > > just so i am sure to have understood properly. i just need to drop the > compatible string from [1/2] and resend. if this is the case i will fix > the mt6397 binding doc while at it. >
And you will also need to remove the .of_compatible = "mediatek,mt6323-regulator" from patch "[PATCH V2 4/4] mfd: mediatek: add MT6323 support to MT6397 driver" since otherwise an MODALIAS=of:foo will be reported instead of an MODALIAS=platform:foo
But if I were you, I would keep the MFD driver and DT binding as they are and provide a .id_table and .of_match_table to the mt6323 regulator platform driver.
I'll write patches for the mt6397 regulator driver adding those tables since it has the same issue and you can see what I mean.
> John
Best regards, Javier
| |