On 25/03/2018 at 03:36:28 +0800, Sean Wang wrote: > just reply both replies in the same mail > > 1.) the power-off device is a part of rtc, use the same registers rtc > has and thus it is put as child nodes under the node rtc to reflect the > reality of characteristics the rtc has. > > Or am I wrong for a certain aspect in these opinions? > My point is that it is also part of the PMIC so it may as well be registers from the mfd driver which already registers a bunch of devices instead of doing unusual stuff from the rtc driver. mt6397_rtc->regmap is mt6397_chip->regmap anyway. You have the added benefit that if the RTC driver probe fails for some reason, you may still be able to probe the reset driver. I don't tink there is any benefit having it as a child of the rtc device. > 2) the other sub-functions for the same pmic already created its own > dt-binding document belonged to its corresponding subsystem. Don't we > really want to follow it them all? > Ok, that's fine. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com -- 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
