On Wed, 02 Jun 2021, Robert Marko wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 4:48 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 01 Jun 2021, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 01 Jun 2021, Michael Walle wrote: > > > > > > > Am 2021-06-01 10:19, schrieb Lee Jones: > > > > > Why do you require one single Regmap anyway? Are they register banks > > > > > not neatly separated on a per-function basis? > > > > > > > > AFAIK you can only have one I2C device driver per device, hence the > > > > simple-mfd-i2c. > > > > > > Sorry, can you provide more detail. > > > > I'd still like further explanation to be sure, but if you mean what I > > think you mean then, no, I don't think that's correct. > > > > The point of simple-mfd-i2c is to provide an I2C device offering > > multiple functions, but does so via a non-separated/linear register- > > set, with an entry point and an opportunity to register its interwoven > > bank of registers via Regmap. > > > > However, if you can get away with not registering your entire register > > set as a single Regmap chunk, then all the better. This will allow > > you to use the OF provided 'simple-mfd' compatible instead. > > > > Now, if you're talking about Regmap not supporting multiple > > registrations with only a single I2C address, this *may* very well be > > the case, but IIRC, I've spoken to Mark about this previously and he > > said the extension to make this possible would be trivial. > > This is my understanding, that you cannot have multiple regmap registrations > with on the same I2C address. > At least that is how it was the last time I tested. > That is why I went the MFD way. I've just clarified with Mark. There does not appear to be such a restriction. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
