[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAQ+DimarhHJOg=BqbH+EB19s+wgtRqJ8-XuLKW6_0FFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:21:49 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [DT Question] "simple-mfd" DT binding
Hi Lee, Linus,
Thanks for your comments!
2017-05-22 17:43 GMT+09:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
>> Because "simple-bus" indicates that child nodes are
>> simply memory mapped, but the node "register-bit-led"
>> can not be memory-mapped.
>> So, "simple-mfd" can not be replaced "simple-bus" here.
>
> Yeah... just like Lee points out, you are spot on, this is exactly
> the reason why we created "simple-mfd" in the first place
> IIRC.
OK, Linux treats simple-bus and simple-mfd in the same way
as far as I see drivers/of/platform.c
Perhaps, can we document the difference between simple-bus and
simple-mfd clearly?
For example, "Unlike simple-bus, it is legitimate that simple-mfd has
subnodes without reg property"
I think this is typical when "simple-mfd" is used together with "syscon".
The child devices will use regmap of the parent node.
I'd like to be sure this is valid usage.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists