[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140219045232.GD2669@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:52:32 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] regulator: add bcm590xx regulator driver
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 06:17:10PM -0500, Matt Porter wrote:
> +static struct of_device_id bcm590xx_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "brcm,bcm59056-regs", },
> + { }
> +};
This looks pretty much OK however I am in general suspicious of MFDs
that have subdevices like this in the DT - it doesn't seem like this is
a reusable device which can appear anywhere else so you're pretty much
just representing the way that Linux splits things up here rather than a
reusable IP that can reasonably have a separate binding.
If you had a binding which did something like enumerate the individual
IP blocks as individual devices that'd be more interesting, I could see
for example that a different PMIC might have a different set of register
compatible regulator IPs laid out. It looks like that might be doable,
but it's in no way essential.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists