Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:26:17 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] mfd: Add support for Merrifield Basin Cove PMIC |
| |
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:03:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 08:03:57AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, 02 Apr 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:12:11AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > Although succinct, dragging values from one platform device into > > > > > > another doesn't sound that neat. > > > > > > > > > > So, how to split resources given in one _physical_ multi-functional device to > > > > > several of them? Isn't it what MFD framework for? > > > > > > > > > > Any other approach here? I'm all ears! > > > > > > > > From the child: > > > > > > > > platform_get_irq(dev->parent, CLIENT_ID); > > > > So, instead of keeping a fragile approach in one driver, we will spread this > > to all of them. > > No, the fragileness goes away with implicit definitions of IDs.
Did you mean "explicit"? Something like we need to have a shared map of those indices?
> > > > > > Also, since the ordering of the > > > > > > devices is critical in this implementation, it also comes across as > > > > > > fragile. > > > > > > > > > > How fragile? In ACPI we don't have IRQ labeling scheme. Index is used for that. > > > > > > > > > > > Any reason why ACPI can't register all of the child devices, or for > > > > > > the child devices to obtain their IRQ directly from the tables? > > > > > > > > > > And how are we supposed to enumerated them taking into consideration single > > > > > ACPI ID given? > > > > > > > > This question was a little whimsical, since I have no idea how the > > > > ACPI tables you're working with are laid out. > > > > There is one device node with several IRQ and other resources. > > In pseudo code: > > > > device node { > > device ID, > > IRQ 0, > > IRQ 1, > > ... > > MMIO 0, > > ... > > } > > Sure. Thanks for the explanation. > > Very well. I guess it's not too bad as it is.
It represent real hardware 1:1. Just out of curiosity how this case can be described in DT?
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |