On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 09:31:29 +0100
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 08:36:08 +0100
> Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 03 Jul 2021, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 10:42:22 +0200
> > > Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This allows having devicetree nodes for the subdevices.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c | 6 ++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > > > index 384acb459427..b916c7471ca3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/rn5t618.c
> > > > @@ -24,8 +24,10 @@ static const struct mfd_cell rn5t618_cells[] = {
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > static const struct mfd_cell rc5t619_cells[] = {
> > > > - { .name = "rn5t618-adc" },
> > > > - { .name = "rn5t618-power" },
> > > > + { .name = "rn5t618-adc",
> > > > + .of_compatible = "ricoh,rc5t619-adc" },
> > >
> > > Odd to have a name of 618 and a compatible of 619. Why?
> > > Definitely deserves a comment if this is necessary for some reason!
> >
> > Actually this is the norm. We have lots of drivers named after the
> > *first* device they supported before expansion.
>
> Ah. I'd missed that this cells array is specific to the 5t619, though if
> the driver is the same I'd also expect it to be needed for the 5t618 entry.
>
Well, yes, it is needed for the 5t618 also. But if I would add it, it
would be untested. And that second shorter array is also used for the
rn5t567 which does not have an ADC, So I we need three arrays there.
Regards,
Andreas
