On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:28:54 +0200
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15/08/2018 at 22:40, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Hi Lee.
> >
> >>> +
> >>> +static const struct mfd_cell lcdc_cells[] = {
> >>> + {
> >>> + .name = "atmel-lcdc-pwm",
> >>> + .of_compatible = "atmel,lcdc-pwm",
> >>> + },
> >>> + {
> >>> + .name = "atmel-lcdc-dc",
> >>> + .of_compatible = "atmel,lcdc-display-controller",
> >>> + },
> >>> +};
> >>
> >> Will you be adding any more devices, or is this the entirety of the
> >> device? If the latter, I suggest that this doesn't warrant being an
> >> MFD.
> > Thats it. And others agree with you that this is not a good approach.
> > So in v2 there will be no MFD.
> >
> > Thanks for confirming that the non-mfd way is the better approach.
>
> MFD approach would have had the benefit of keeping this driver series
> architecture close to the HLCD one. This would have been easier to
> understand and use one SoC or another one from the AT91 product line....
>
> Anyway, I'd wait for Boris' feedback for making a decision.
If possible I'd like to keep the MFD approach, but let's see if we can
have a single node in the DT instead of one for the MFD and 2 child
nodes (for the display controller and the PWM).
