On Thu, 22 Sep 2022, Chunyan Zhang wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Sorry for the late response. > [1] is the v1 on which we had some discussion. I hope that can help > recall the issue below. > > On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 21:46, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 11:19:53AM +0800, Chunyan Zhang wrote: > > > > > +properties: > > > + compatible: > > > + const: sprd,sc2730-regulator > > > > I still don't understand why this MFD subfunction for a specific device > > is a separate binding with a separate compatible string, the issues I > > mentioned previously with this just encoding current Linux internals > > into the DT rather than describing the device still apply. > > I understand your point. But like I described previously [1], if we > still use the current solution (i.e. use devm_of_platform_populate() > to register MFD subdevices), a compatible string is required. I'm open > to switching to other solutions, do you have some suggestions? Many IPs encompassing multiple functions are described that way in DT. I don't have the details for *this* device to hand, so my comments here aren't specific to this use-case, but describing each function individually does describe the H/W accurately, which is all DT calls for. Can you imagine describing an SoC, which can be considered as a huge MFD, with only a single node? Does the regulator functionality have it's own bank of registers? -- DEPRECATED: Please use lee@xxxxxxxxxx
