From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mfd: Add support for Merrifield Basin Cove PMIC
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:27:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190404122708.GS9224@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190404094459.GV6830@dell>
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:44:59AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 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:
> > > > > > 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"?
>
> Yes. Thank you for correcting my English. :)
>
> > Something like we need to have a shared map of those indices?
>
> Defining the IDs of the devices would lead to a more robust
> implementation, yes.
This would make children to know that they are springs of exact MFD parent driver
that makes them dependent and inflexible.
> > > > 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?
>
> In DT you can have a sub-node for each child which can contain the
> IRQ. Without a sub-node you would define the IRQs in this file. If
> these IRQs do not change, that option is still available to you.
>
> I can't think of an example where all of the children's IRQs have been
> listed in the parent's DT node in this way.
I see. Something similar is done in ACPI table for Intel Galileo Gen2
(see intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c), though it's a PCI device with shared
interrupt line.
If it would be a case like above, MFD would have propagated IRQ resources from
them to the children anyway.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-04 12:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-18 9:53 Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-18 12:07 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-04-02 5:12 ` Lee Jones
2019-04-02 12:20 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-04-02 12:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-04-04 7:00 ` Lee Jones
2019-04-04 7:03 ` Lee Jones
2019-04-04 8:21 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-04-04 9:03 ` Lee Jones
2019-04-04 9:26 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-04-04 9:44 ` Lee Jones
2019-04-04 12:27 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190404122708.GS9224@smile.fi.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome