On 12/05/2023 17:54, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:30:37PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/05/2023 14:28, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>> + priv->gpio_chip.fwnode = dev_fwnode(cs42l43->dev);
What's also a bit confusing is that gpio_chip is the parent's node, but
pinctrl is not...
>>> +
>>> + if (is_of_node(dev_fwnode(cs42l43->dev))) {
>>> + device_set_node(priv->dev,
>>> + fwnode_get_named_child_node(dev_fwnode(cs42l43->dev),
>>> + "pinctrl"));
>>
>> That's something unusual. It seems you want to bind to a DT node because
>> you miss compatible in DT node?
>>
>
> Kinda, I don't really want to add multiple compatibles for the
> device. This is just a CODEC device, even in device tree it
> seems a little weird to have multiple compatibles for a single
> I2C device. On ACPI I am pretty sure it would be considered flat
> out right wrong. The fact Linux supports the device using multiple
> drivers is seemed to be a Linux implementation detail, rather than
> describing the hardware.
>
I think if you do not have compatible, then the device node should be
rather the parent (so the main node with compatible), not the child.
Child is just a wrapper for pinctrls, but not something representing a
device.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
