On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:32:51PM +0300, Ivan T. Ivanov 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. The terminology here is a bit confusing. When I read "controller", I hear "SPMI controller", but this is really not a limitation of the SPMI core, but rather a limitation of of_platform_populate() used by this particular SPMI slave MFD driver. > Adding Unique Slave ID device address to prefix function > device names fixes this. > > Function devices are SPMI devices, so register them on > SPMI bus. This is a step backwards. The PMIC functions are not individually addressable SPMI slaves, and as such should not be represented as independent devices to the SPMI core. They really are subfunctions of a particular SPMI slave, and should be modeled as children of that slave device. With this driver, we've chosen to model the child devices as platform devices, but it could also be a separate bus type. Josh -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- 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
