On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 12:57 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > > Hello Lee, > > > > On Fri, 2020-11-27 at 08:32 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > > > Add core support for ROHM BD9576MUF and BD9573MUF PMICs which > > > > are > > > > mainly used to power the R-Car series processors. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen < > > > > matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 11 ++++ > > > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > > > > drivers/mfd/rohm-bd9576.c | 108 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd957x.h | 59 +++++++++++++++++ > > > > include/linux/mfd/rohm-generic.h | 2 + > > > > 5 files changed, 181 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/rohm-bd9576.c > > > > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd957x.h > > > > > > Looks like a possible candidate for "simple-mfd-i2c". > > > > > > Could you look into that please? > > > > > I must admit I didn't know about "simple-mfd-i2c". Good thing to > > know > > when working with simple devices :) Is this a new thing? > > Yes, it's new. > > > I am unsure I understand the idea fully. Should users put all the > > different regamp configs in this file and just add the device IDs > > with > > pointer to correct config? (BD9576 and BD9573 need volatile > > ranges). > > Also, does this mean each sub-device should have own node and own > > compatible in DT to get correctly load and probed? I guess this > > would > > need a buy-in from Rob too then. > > You should describe the H/W in DT. After re-reading this - do you mean one should describe for example the register ranges in DT? I don't see code which parses the volatile ranges or other regmap configs here. I assume no. I guess you replied to the question whether each sub device would need own node and compatible. Best Regards Matti Vaittinen
