> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Korsgaard [mailto:jacmet@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Korsgaard > Sent: 2016年1月14日 15:28 > To: Yang, Wenyou <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>; > Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>; Mark > Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski > <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ferre, Nicolas > <Nicolas.FERRE@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Javier Martinez > Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: act8945a: add regulator driver for > ACT8945A > > >>>>> "Yang," == Yang, Wenyou <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> Isn't the regulator part of the act8945a identical to act8865? Can't we just use > the >> existing act8865-regulator.c driver? (E.G. support 8865 variant in the mfd > driver, >> but only register the regulator sub device?) > > > Yes, the regulator part of the act8945a is identical to act8865. > > > But the act8865-regulator driver is a struct i2c_driver, and the mfd > sub- > device driver is a platform_driver driver, it is not easy to use > it. > > But the mfd driver could support the act8865 variant as well (by only registering > the regulator mfd cell). I still don't understand. The MFD sub device is registered as a platform device, the existing act8865 driver is registered as an i2c_driver. How do they match? :) Could you point out which exiting driver for me to reference. Thank you! Best Regards, Wenyou Yang ?韬{.n?????%??檩??w?{.n????z谵{???塄}?财??j:+v?? ? ???2??璀??摺?囤??z夸z罐?+?????w棹f
