>>>>> "Yang," == Yang, Wenyou <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Hi, >> >>> 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! What I'm saying is that it isn't nice that we end up with both act8865-regulator.c and act8954-regulator.c doing 95% the same. This can either be fixed by: - Adding act8865 support to your mfd driver (but only registering the regulator subdev for act8865) and changing the existing act8865-regulator driver to work as a mfd subdev (platform device) - Extending the act8865-regulator driver to register as a platform driver in ADDITION to a i2c driver so it can be used with mfd. The driver already uses regmap so it should only be a matter of adding the pdev probe/remove functions. -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard -- 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
