On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 02:42:28PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 01:09:56PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:37:58PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: ... > I think we should consider ACPI to be a hack in the first place :-) I feel that about DT (and all chaos around it) but it's not a topic here. > > Could this be just one more platform device for each of the three cases (or > > one for the two latter; I'm not quite sure yet)? > > Using MFD for this seems a bit overkill to me. I won't care much as I > won't maintain those drivers, but the current situation is complex > enough, it was hard for me to understand how things worked. Adding yet > another layer with another platform device won't make it any simpler. > > If we want to split this in two, I'd rather have a tps68470 driver on > one side, without ACPI op region support, but registering regulators, > GPIOs and clocks (without using separate drivers and devices for these > three features), and an INT3472 driver on the other side, with all the > ACPI glue and hacks. The tps68470 code could possibly even be structured > in such a way that it would be used as a library by the INT3472 driver > instead of requiring a separate platform device. I'm afraid TPS68470 is MFD in hardware and its representation in the MFD is fine. What we need is to move IN3472 pieces out from it. And I agree with your proposal in general. > > The GPIO regulator case is relatively safe, but the real PMICs require > > regulator voltage control as well as enabling and disabling the regulators. > > That probably requires either schematics or checking the register values at > > runtime on Windows (i.e. finding out which system you're dealing with, at > > runtime). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
