On 23/11/2022 08:43, Jacky Bai wrote: >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: nxp,bbnsm: Add binding for nxp >> bbnsm >> >> On 21/11/2022 11:26, Jacky Bai wrote: >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: nxp,bbnsm: Add binding for >>>> nxp bbnsm >>>> >>>> On 21/11/2022 07:51, Jacky Bai wrote: >>>>> Add binding for NXP BBNSM(Battery-Backed Non-Secure Module). >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jacky Bai <ping.bai@xxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>> + >>>>> + properties: >>>>> + compatible: >>>>> + const: nxp,bbnsm-rtc >>>> >>>> >>>> Missing ref to rtc.yaml. >>> >>> Ok will include in v2. >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + regmap: >>>> >>>> Use vendor prefix, descriptive name and description. Where is the >>>> type of 'regmap' defined? >>> >>> Type is missed. Will add a description and type define if necessary. >>> >>>> >>>>> + maxItems: 1 >>>> >>>> I don't think this is correct. Rob explained the simple-mfd means >>>> children >>> do >>>> not depend on anything from the parent, but taking a regmap from its >>> parent >>>> contradicts it. >>> >>> For this BBNSM module, basically, it provides two sperate & different >>> function: RTC and ON/OFF button control. But no separate register >>> offset range for each of these functions. For example, the interrupt >>> enable control, Interrupt status and basic function control are mixed >>> in the same registers' >>> different bit. >>> >>> Any good suggestion on how to handle such case? ^_^ >> >> The solution for more complex common parts, dedicated device driver (MFD >> driver) with its own binding. However I understand why it would be overshoot >> here. >> > > Is it ok to keep current implementation rather than reimplement a new dedicate MFD wrapper driver? Yes Best regards, Krzysztof
