> >>>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?
>
> I wanted to have the DT like:
>
> as3722 {
> compatible = "ams,as3722";
> reg = <0x40>;
>
> #interrupt-controller;
> .....
>
>
> regulators {
> ldo1-in-supply = <..>;
> ....
> sd0 {
> regulator-name = "vdd-cpu";
> .....
> };
> sd1 {
> regulator-name = "vdd-ddr";
> .....
> };
> ....
> };
> };
>
> And regulator driver should get the regulator node by their
> pdev->dev.of_node.
> Currently, in most of driver, we are having the code on regulator
> driver to get "regulators" node from parent node which I want to
> avoid.
Ah, I see. Yes, I believe the regulators should have their own node,
complete with a compatible string. To have each regulator listed
separately in the parent node seems a little messy. Just out of
interest, how many regulators are we talking about here?
--
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
