Hi,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:07:36AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [180308 09:47]:
> > Hi Lee,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 04:32:11PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > > > +static const struct mfd_cell cpcap_mfd_devices[] = {
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > + }, {
> > > > + .name = "cpcap-led",
> > > > + .id = 4,
> > > > + .of_compatible = "motorola,cpcap-led-cp",
> > > > + }, {
> > > > + .name = "cpcap-codec",
> > > > + }
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > With none of the entries containing platform_data /me wonders why you
> > > can't still use devm_of_platform_populate()?
> >
> > Because devm_of_platform_populate works with compatible properties and
> > cpcap-codec does not have one after I removed it for Mark.
>
> How about keep devm_of_platform_populate() for the ones that
> already have compatible. Then add a table entry for cpcap-codec
> only and call devm_mfd_add_devices()?
This should work. I think it makes sense to wait for Rob Herring's
feedback on the binding. My understanding is, that he has the last
word on binding questions and I would like to avoid changing this
back and forth.
-- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
