From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753719Ab3ISLzr (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:55:47 -0400 Received: from cassiel.sirena.org.uk ([80.68.93.111]:41030 "EHLO cassiel.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753228Ab3ISLzn (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:55:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:55:01 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Lee Jones Cc: Laxman Dewangan , sameo@linux.intel.com, rob.herring@calxeda.com, pawel.moll@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, swarren@wwwdotorg.org, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, rob@landley.net, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20130919115501.GM21013@sirena.org.uk> References: <1379579392-1794-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20130919083050.GH16984@lee--X1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FAVlh7XA/4iOdtaa" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130919083050.GH16984@lee--X1> X-Cookie: Give him an evasive answer. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 86.153.71.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: core: introduce of_node_name for mfd sub devices X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on cassiel.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --FAVlh7XA/4iOdtaa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:30:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > I'm not entirely sure this is what Mark was saying. I think he was > complaining about the existence of the sub-nodes rather than how the > MFD Core assigns their of_node. My take is that the chip is really a > single device which provides different bits of functionality. To break > that functionality up and disperse the drivers into various subsystems > is a Linuxisum. By providing each functional block with its own node > you're describing how we do things in Linux, rather than specifying a > single node for the AS3722 which would probably be the norm. Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking of. > Do the sub-nodes have their own properties? If so, it would be worth > breaking them up as other OSes could reuse the specifics. If they do, > then you need so put them in the binding. If they don't, then you do > not require sub-nodes. The MFD core will ensure the sub-devices are > probed and there is no requirement for the of_node to be assigned. You do see some reusable IP blocks (like the regualtors on the wm831x PMICs for example, they're repeated blocks) which can be reused but generally they have a register base as part of the binding. Personally if it's just a property or two I'd probably just put them on the root node for the device. --FAVlh7XA/4iOdtaa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSOuYSAAoJELSic+t+oim9LlcP/iXsJl5JsRYOAqGLP0TfnNHw fKuYUMnbJvoZ8hvXh1SQ0YyzshUQLJHixsJFqRZX9sNiG2ZRqMjb/dpBAhpv7R5f J+skTM3eiN7q9qBwEKBSibiVsCq1l8jOi8FG+Ls+ETTMhHMlnu9mYYTyorXQsCcR hS9UxZpcVEzh6jOkDYUcPIzf/GQKH0ThvSmtPGDcx0C4kEH+Rv8nSopZ73fS/B7a +5opYK3jVDbglmISC4gkWyarCdxiE8Gt13ASOSfbVS05BOtaLHPgyQh5Hqju+3D1 nvEPKe8AGqeSL3TfJLbdnIS23jJlZnQRCCBS27A0mQ2pCAPwSjuo4MajpuZL3Kp0 KAsWzyn0Sgo9W8eba1o16nCuNg6UFQk8Ri+L/Y1cdzXtop99YucgSSZmGu+VPH58 DSdjAteGbO4M3DB3i7Mu02ZIjWUhEeniIz1U1AhrtWLVl8ccYfQjQ6gfA09o706/ doGdwWgjZLC1o7dl16f4pFOMeJ8QFfEg/6S5qogxVpiCSuc7JZwvakKW6y387hzS lVquNhMWzRDVmA2wPrd9SVU+UH62oB4r/52m/ZxkwSMxYBmHv17hZcttdkvgvMcX 2rnjaoqD5THOQXhefv2m1VTAj9al0sLG08lelWFWsI605TSguyL/VNmJ0q/bNrsX QDablCSTvH9oAHhyYNfj =idoZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FAVlh7XA/4iOdtaa--