>On Sun, 09 Apr 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:
>
>> >On Wed, 05 Apr 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:09:50PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 03 Apr 2023, Sahin, Okan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > > In fact, one of the maintainers suggested assigning chip_info to data
>> >> > > instead of enumeration. Then I added chip_info and put devices into
>> >> > > sub-structure above. I will replace chip_info with id structure in max77541
>> >> > > device structure, right? I will use enumeration for data as I will assign
>> >> > > it to id, and distinguish different devices.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, that's correct. Please remove chip_info altogether.
>> >>
>> >> Then it will provoke casting in the OF ID table which I believe is not what
>> >> we want. I would agree on your first suggestion to have a plain number in I²C
>> >> ID table, but I'm against it in OF and/or ACPI ID table.
>> >
>> >And I'm against passing MFD information through the OF/ACPI APIs.
>> >
>> >You can put through raw platform data or a device descriptor.
>> >
>> >Ref: git grep -A5 "struct of_device_id.*{" -- drivers/mfd
>> >
>> >--
>> >Lee Jones [李琼斯]
>>
>> Hi Lee,
>>
>> Right now, as you suggested I rewrote code like below
>> For of_device_id,
>> . data = (void *)MAX77540,
>> .data = (void *)MAX77541,
>> For i2c_device_id,
>> .data = MAX77540,
>> .data = MAX77541
>> I also rewrote other part as chip_info is excluded. I want to be sure before
>> sending new patch.
>>
>> Does it seem correct?
>
>This is one suitable method, yes.
>
>--
>Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Hi Lee,
Thank you for your support.
Regards,
Okan Sahin
