On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Ivan T. Ivanov <iivanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
By core, I mean the device naming conventions used by the DT platform
device code. There is a problem and it should be handled.
As I mentioned in the other thread, either we should not use the
address on non-translatable addresses like this or append the parent
address.
> 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
