On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote: > ... > cell 0 - address type (0: master, 1: unique ID, 2: group ID, ...) I think it would make sense to have the master id as a property of the bus, as you could consider this to indicate different buses and then usid, gsid and base being part of the reg. > cell 1 - address value I did hack up Josh patchset to read a reg touple of <usid, base> instead of just usid. I stored the second value in the spmi_device struct for easy access, but maybe it should be done like on codeaurora; in a resource? I believe this looks nice, but as I haven't read the mipi spec I wonder, will there be a case where you don't have an offset/base? Should it just be made optional? Can we make the address <usid, [base]> and have the code populate a resource based on a reg-names property? That way it would be possible to extend it to support gsid in case we want to (would require reg-names though). With the hack to Josh's patchset I quickly ported qpnp-revision and qpnp-vibrator, and it seems to work quite nicely. Regards, Bjorn -- 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
