On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 09:15 -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > 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", Yes, it is badly worded. > 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. I tend to agree. My reasoning was that they are part of the device which sits on the SPMI bus, so they should also be part of this bus. Regards, Ivan > > Josh > -- 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
