Jacek On 09/10/2018 02:07 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > Dan, Pavel, > > On 09/10/2018 04:37 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: >> Jacek >> >> On 09/08/2018 02:53 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>> Dan, >>> >>> On 09/07/2018 03:52 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> And I think Jacek pointed out that the bindings references in this bindings >>>>>> don't even exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am thinking we need to deprecate this MFD driver and consolidate these drivers >>>>>> in the LED directory as we indicated before. I did not find any ti-lmu support >>>>>> code. >>>>>> >>>>>> ti-lmu common core code and then the LED children appending the feature differentiation. >>>>> >>>>>> Need some maintainer weigh in here. >>>>> >>>>> Hehe. I'm maintnainer. Fun. >>>> >>>> I know. I want to see if there was any other opinion. Especially for the LED driver. >>>> >>> [...] >>> >>> I have a question - is this lm3697 LED controller a cell of some MFD >>> device? Or is it a self-contained chip? >>> >> >> This is a self contained chip. And the LM3697 only function is a LED driver. >> It does not have any other special functions like the LM363X drivers for GPIO and Regulator support. > > This is an argument for merging it as a standalone LED class driver > then. It is even more justifiable, taking into account uncertainties > related to the proper way of adding the support for it to the existing > MFD driver, whereas the code reuse would be the only advantage of having > thus support in MFD subsystem. > Does the argument carry over to the other devices? Like the LM3632 (part of the ti-lmu) has flash and torch and no other special functions so it would look like the lm3601x family with different register mappings. The LM3631 seems to also be just a LED driver with no extra functionality I could go buy an EVM and put together a driver for that device as well using the lm3601x as reference. Dan -- ------------------ Dan Murphy
