On Sun, 09 Apr 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:
> >On Wed, 05 Apr 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:09:50PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 03 Apr 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> > > In fact, one of the maintainers suggested assigning chip_info to data
> >> > > instead of enumeration. Then I added chip_info and put devices into
> >> > > sub-structure above. I will replace chip_info with id structure in max77541
> >> > > device structure, right? I will use enumeration for data as I will assign
> >> > > it to id, and distinguish different devices.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, that's correct. Please remove chip_info altogether.
> >>
> >> Then it will provoke casting in the OF ID table which I believe is not what
> >> we want. I would agree on your first suggestion to have a plain number in I²C
> >> ID table, but I'm against it in OF and/or ACPI ID table.
> >
> >And I'm against passing MFD information through the OF/ACPI APIs.
> >
> >You can put through raw platform data or a device descriptor.
> >
> >Ref: git grep -A5 "struct of_device_id.*{" -- drivers/mfd
> >
> >--
> >Lee Jones [李琼斯]
>
> Hi Lee,
>
> Right now, as you suggested I rewrote code like below
> For of_device_id,
> . data = (void *)MAX77540,
> .data = (void *)MAX77541,
> For i2c_device_id,
> .data = MAX77540,
> .data = MAX77541
> I also rewrote other part as chip_info is excluded. I want to be sure before
> sending new patch.
>
> Does it seem correct?
This is one suitable method, yes.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
