> -----Original Message----- > From: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 5:10 PM > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 05:52:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:38:14PM +0800, Ye, Xiang wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:57AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 04:03:26PM +0800, Ye, Xiang wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > You don't really seem to get any benefit from MFD. Perhaps it > > > > would be more appropriate and clear if you just registered > > > > auxiliary devices in this driver. Check drivers/base/auxiliary.c. > > > Yes, it should be a work. I have a question. > > > MFD provides the ACPI binding for sub-devices through struct > > > mfd_cell_acpi_match. But I didn't see this in drivers/base/auxiliary.c. > > > If using auxiliary bus to implement the LJCA sub-devices, we need to > > > do the sub-devices acpi binding manually in ljca.c. > > > > > > Something Like: > > > adr = LJCA_ACPI_MATCH_GPIO > > > adev = acpi_find_child_device(parent, adr, false); > > > ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&pdev->dev, adev ?: parent); > > > > > > Is that acceptable? This actually doesn't work, look at the acpi_find_child_device(), it compares the bus address specified by _ADR object, but there is no _ADR object in DSDT for these three devices because the relationship between the parent and children isn't bus type listed in ACPI spec, so it always return NULL. BR, Wentong > > Looks ok to me. > > > Maybe you can implement this on the level of auxiliary bus. > > I would actually prefer that the auxiliary bus itself does not make any > assumptions regarding the whereabouts of the fwnodes at this stage. Maybe > later, when(if) there are more users. > > thanks, > > -- > heikki
