Hello Grygorii, [snip] >> >> For tps65218 couldn't instead of using mfd_add_devices() for all the >> sub-devs, had used of_platform_populate() for the ones that have >> device nodes and mfd_add_devices() only for the "tps65218-regulator"? >> >> The commit talks about nodes without compatibles but's actually about >> sub-devices without an associated device node. For me it makes sense >> to use of_platform_populate() when the MFD has device nodes for their >> sub-devices and mfd_add_devices() when DT knows nothing about the >> sub-devices. > > FYI. Below is link discussion I'm referring to between Mark Brown and Andrew F. Davis > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/22/823 > the same - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/wQsdSpPMroQ > Thanks a lot for the pointer. There's a subtle difference between the argument you made and the one that Mark is making in this thread though. Because you said (sorry if I misunderstood) that mfd_add_devices() should be used instead of of_device_populate() even when sub-devices are described as DT nodes (as is the case in the commit you shared) while Mark is saying that if the sub-devs IP blocks are part of the MFD, then it shouldn't be exposed in the DT and be instantiated via mfd_add_devices() and I absolutely agree with that. So I was arguing for using of_device_populate() if the sub-devices are described in the DT. If that makes sense or not to expose the sub-devices in the DT for this particular driver is a different discussion and I can't comment on that since I'm not familiar with the HW. Best regards, Javier -- 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
