[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201202125723.GK4801@dell>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 12:57:23 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc: "linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"wim@...ux-watchdog.org" <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
"mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-power <linux-power@...rohmeurope.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 2/4] mfd: Support ROHM BD9576MUF and BD9573MUF
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> Hello Lee,
>
> On Fri, 2020-11-27 at 08:32 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> >
> > > Add core support for ROHM BD9576MUF and BD9573MUF PMICs which are
> > > mainly used to power the R-Car series processors.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 11 ++++
> > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 +
> > > drivers/mfd/rohm-bd9576.c | 108
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd957x.h | 59 +++++++++++++++++
> > > include/linux/mfd/rohm-generic.h | 2 +
> > > 5 files changed, 181 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/rohm-bd9576.c
> > > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd957x.h
> >
> > Looks like a possible candidate for "simple-mfd-i2c".
> >
> > Could you look into that please?
> >
> I must admit I didn't know about "simple-mfd-i2c". Good thing to know
> when working with simple devices :) Is this a new thing?
Yes, it's new.
> I am unsure I understand the idea fully. Should users put all the
> different regamp configs in this file and just add the device IDs with
> pointer to correct config? (BD9576 and BD9573 need volatile ranges).
> Also, does this mean each sub-device should have own node and own
> compatible in DT to get correctly load and probed? I guess this would
> need a buy-in from Rob too then.
You should describe the H/W in DT.
> By the way - for uneducated eyes like mine this does not look like it
> has much to do with MFD as a device - here MFD reminds me of a simple-
> bus on top of I2C.
This is for MFD devices where the parent does little more than create
a shared address space for child devices to operate on - like yours.
> Anyways, the BD9576 and BD9573 both have a few interrupts for OVD/UVD
> conditions and I am expecting that I will be asked to provide the
> regulator notifiers for those. Reason why I omitted the IRQs for now is
> that the HW is designed to keep the IRQ asserted for whole error
> duration so some delayed ack mechanism would be needed. I would like to
> keep the door open for adding IRQs to MFD core.
You mean to add an IRQ Domain?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists