On Tue, 31 Jan 2022 3:27 PM
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 09:27:48AM +0000, Sahin, Okan wrote:
>
>First of all, please do avoid top-posting.
>
>> Sorry for second question. I do not want to bother you, but I realized
>> that I need to be sure about driver_data before sending new patch. You
>> said that you need to use pointers directly for driver_data then I
>> fixed that part in mfd, but I do not need or use driver_data in
>> regulator since chip_id comes from mfd device so I think using like
>> below should be enough for my implementation.
>>
>> static const struct platform_device_id max77541_regulator_platform_id[] = {
>> { "max77540-regulator", },
>> { "max77541-regulator", },
>> { /* sentinel */ }
>> };
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, max77541_regulator_platform_id);
>>
>> static const struct of_device_id max77541_regulator_of_id[] = {
>> { .compatible = "adi,max77540-regulator", },
>> { .compatible = "adi,max77541-regulator", },
>> { /* sentinel */ }
>> };
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, max77541_regulator_of_id);
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>If you have got all necessary data from the upper layer, why do you need to have
>an ID table here? I'm not sure I understand how this OF ID table works in this
>case.
I added it since there is regulator node in device tree. With the help of devm_regulator_register(..), driver takes parameters of regulator node. I also used id to select and to initialize regulator descriptors which are chip specific. So far there is no comment about OF ID table so I kept it. I thought I need to add both of id table and platform id table as name matching is required to initialize platform device from mfd.
>
>--
>With Best Regards,
>Andy Shevchenko
>
Best Regards,
Okan Sahin
