On Wed, 10 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2020-06-10 09:56, schrieb Lee Jones:
> > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
> >
> > > Am 2020-06-10 09:19, schrieb Lee Jones:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > > > Am 2020-06-09 21:45, schrieb Lee Jones:
> > > > > > On Tue, 09 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > > > > > > We do not need a 'simple-regmap' solution for your use-case.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since your device's registers are segregated, just split up the
> > > > > > > > register map and allocate each sub-device with it's own slice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't get it, could you make a device tree example for my
> > > > > > > use-case? (see also above)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > &i2cbus {
> > > > > > mfd-device@10 {
> > > > > > compatible = "simple-mfd";
> > > > > > reg = <10>;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sub-device@10 {
> > > > > > compatible = "vendor,sub-device";
> > > > > > reg = <10>;
> > > > > > };
> > > > > > };
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Regmap config would be present in each of the child devices.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Each child device would call devm_regmap_init_i2c() in .probe().
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, I see. If I'm not wrong, this still means to create an i2c
> > > > > device driver with the name "simple-mfd".
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it does.
> > > >
> > > > > Besides that, I don't like this, because:
> > > > > - Rob already expressed its concerns with "simple-mfd" and so on.
> > > >
> > > > Where did this take place? I'd like to read up on this.
> > >
> > > In this thread:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20200604211039.12689-1-michael@xxxxxxxx/T/#m16fdba5962069e7cd4aa817582ee358c9fe2ecbf
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > - you need to duplicate the config in each sub device
> > > >
> > > > You can have a share a single config.
> > > >
> > > > > - which also means you are restricting the sub devices to be
> > > > > i2c only (unless you implement and duplicate other regmap configs,
> > > > > too). For this driver, SPI and MMIO may be viable options.
> > > >
> > > > You could also have a shared implementation to choose between different
> > > > busses.
> > >
> > > Then what is the difference between to have this shared config in the
> > > parent driver only and use the functions which are already there, i.e.
> > > dev_get_regmap(parent). But see, below, I'll wait with what you're
> > > coming up.
> >
> > The difference is the omission of an otherwise pointless/superfluous
> > driver. Actually, it's the difference between the omission of 10
> > pointless drivers!
>
> If you want to omit anything generic in the device tree - and as far as
> I understand it - that should be the way to go, the specific compatible
> string of the parent device has to go somewhere. Thus I'd appreciate
> a consolidated (MFD) driver which holds all these, as you say it
> pointless drivers.
> Because IMHO they are not pointless, rather they are
> the actual drivers for the MFD. Its sub nodes are just an implementation
> detail to be able to use the OF bindings
> (like your clock example or
> a phandle to a PWM controller). Just because it is almost nothing there
> except the regmap instantiation doesn't mean it is not a valid MFD driver.
A valid MFD driver is whatever we (the Linux community at large)
define it to be. An MFD is not a real thing. We made it up. It's
MFD which is the implementation detail, not the child devices. If a
driver a) does very little, and b) the very little it does do can be
resolved in a different way, is not a valid driver. It's a waste of
disk space.
> And there is also additional stuff, like clock enable, version checks, etc.
As more functionality is added *then* we can justify a driver.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
