Quoting Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) (2022-04-18 08:08:33)
>
> On 4/15/2022 5:51 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Satya Priya (2022-04-14 05:30:14)
> >> Use i2c_new_dummy_device() to register clients along with
> >> the main mfd device.
> > Why?
>
>
> As discussed on V9 of this series, I've done these changes.
>
> By using this API we can register other clients at different address
> space without having separate DT node.
>
> This avoids calling the probe twice for the same chip, once for each
> address space 0x8 and 0x9. I'll add this description in commit text.
>
Perfect, thanks.
>
> >> @@ -221,19 +236,38 @@ static int pm8008_probe_irq_peripherals(struct pm8008_data *chip,
> >>
> >> static int pm8008_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> >> {
> >> - int rc;
> >> + int rc, i;
> >> struct pm8008_data *chip;
> >> + struct device_node *node = client->dev.of_node;
> >>
> >> chip = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> if (!chip)
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> chip->dev = &client->dev;
> >> - chip->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(client, &qcom_mfd_regmap_cfg);
> >> - if (!chip->regmap)
> >> - return -ENODEV;
> >>
> >> - i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
> >> + for (i = 0; i < PM8008_NUM_CLIENTS; i++) {
> > This is 2. Why do we have a loop? Just register the i2c client for
> > pm8008_infra first and then make a dummy for the second address without
> > the loop and the indentation. Are there going to be more i2c clients?
>
>
> There wont be more than 2 clients, I can remove the loop, but then we
> will have repetitive code.. something like below
Repetitive code can be refactored into a subroutine.
>
> chip->dev = &client->dev;
> i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip);
>
> regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(client, &qcom_mfd_regmap_cfg[0]);
> if (!regmap)
> return -ENODEV;
>
>
> pm8008_client = i2c_new_dummy_device(client->adapter,
> client->addr + 1);
> if (IS_ERR(pm8008_client)) {
> dev_err(&pm8008_client->dev, "can't attach client\n");
> return PTR_ERR(pm8008_client);
> }
> pm8008_client->dev.of_node = of_node_get(client->dev.of_node);
> i2c_set_clientdata(pm8008_client, chip);
>
> regulators_regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(pm8008_client,
> &qcom_mfd_regmap_cfg[1]);
> if (!regmap)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/qcom_pm8008.h b/include/linux/mfd/qcom_pm8008.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..bc64f01
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/qcom_pm8008.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> >> +#ifndef __QCOM_PM8008_H__
> >> +#define __QCOM_PM8008_H__
> >> +
> >> +#define PM8008_INFRA_SID 0
> >> +#define PM8008_REGULATORS_SID 1
> >> +
> >> +#define PM8008_NUM_CLIENTS 2
> >> +
> >> +struct pm8008_data;
> >> +struct regmap *pm8008_get_regmap(struct pm8008_data *chip, u8 sid);
> > Could this be avoided if the regulator driver used
> > dev_get_regmap(&pdev->dev.parent, "regulator") to find the regmap named
> > "regulator" of the parent device, i.e. pm8008-infra.
>
> I gave it a try, it didn't work. I could not get the regmap for
> regulators using pm8008-infra i.e., 0x8 device pointer.
Did it not work because the regmap config for the regulator config
didn't have a name?
