On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. Agreed. Besides, there doesn't seem to be *any* sub-device properties defined in the binding document. So what are you trying to achieve with the child nodes? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
