On 07/03/2025 14:22, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:11:26AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 06/03/2025 13:19, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
>>>>> It is interfaced to host controller using SPI interface by a proprietary hardware
>>>>> called PMIC wrapper or pwrap. MT6397/MT6323 PMIC is a child device of pwrap.
>>>>> @@ -224,6 +225,30 @@ properties:
>>>>> description:
>>>>> Pin controller
>>>>>
>>>>> + accdet:
>>>>> + type: object
>>>>> + additionalProperties: false
>>>>> + description:
>>>>> + The Accessory Detection module found on the PMIC allows detecting audio
>>>>> + jack insertion and removal, as well as identifying the type of events
>>>>> + connected to the jack.
>>>>> +
>>>>> + properties:
>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>> + const: mediatek,mt6359-accdet
>>>>
>>>> You just removed the other file, no folding happened here. Drop the
>>>> accdet node and fold this into parent.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm still not sure what you mean by folding here then. Right now the
>>> accdet is a subnode of the PMIC. If you want me to remove the accdet node, where
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>> would its compatible and property go?
>>
>> compatible: nowhere, because it is close to redundancy.
>>
>> property: to the parent pmic node.
>>
>> pmic {
>> compatible = "mediatek,mt6359";
>> interrupt-controller;
>> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>>
>> mediatek,hp-eint-high;
>> };
>
> I'm not sure that's right. The ACCDET submodule does have some resources, IRQs,
> that it registers in its mfd cell, see patch 2 of this series [1]. It also has
Binding is supposed to be complete, so why suddenly we have here some
resources which you did not add?
Post complete binding, so you will get proper review.
> its own driver (sound/soc/codecs/mt6359-accdet.c) that probes based on this
Drivers do not define bindings.
> compatible and handles those interrupts. Why would it not get its own node like
Sorry, cannot go. You cannot document binding post factum and claim "I
have a driver which uses that compatible".
This would be a nice way to bypass review.
> the other MFD cells?
I explained why. I gave you the exact reason.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
