On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 08:00 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Ivan T. Ivanov <iivanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: "Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Currently functions that exist in both the controller at the
> > same address offset can not be specified with the same names.
> >
> > Adding Unique Slave ID device address to prefix function
> > device names fixes this.
> >
> > Function devices are SPMI devices, so register them on
> > SPMI bus.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ivan T. Ivanov <iivanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/mfd/pm8x41.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>
> No, this should be fixed in the core, not the driver.
I think that at core level they are no issues.
There is no name clashes with "top level" devices.
spmi@...{
...
child@0 {
compatible = "qcom,pm8941";
reg = <0x0 SPMI_USID>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
revid@100 {
compatible = "qcom,qpnp-revid";
reg = <0x100>;
};
};
child@4 {
compatible = "qcom,pm8841";
reg = <0x4 SPMI_USID>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
revid@100 {
compatible = "qcom,qpnp-revid";
reg = <0x100>;
};
};
};
I don't have experience with SPMI devices, but it looks
like address partitioning is specific to this "PMIC"
controllers.
Regards,
Ivan
>
> Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
