On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 09:05:11PM +0000, Dan Scally wrote: > On 01/12/2020 19:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 09:06:38PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: ... > > I would rather ask Hans' opinion since he has quite an expertise with DMI for > > good and bad. > > > I have no real preference as to the current method or DMI, but thoughts > that come to mind are: > > > 1. given your info that low byte 0x0c means clock enable, we need to > register a clock too. Do we need to extend this device specific section > to map a clock name, or is it acceptable for them to be nameless (ISTR > that the API will let you fetch a clock using devm_clock_get(dev, NULL);) > > 2. Given only 0x0b pin is actually a regulator and it's controlling > multiple devices, my plan when we got round to adding the VCM / EEPROM > support was simply to extend those mapping tables so that those > supplementary devices were also able to get that regulator...and the two > would share it. I think, from reading the regulator code and > documentation, that that's all fine - and it won't actually be disabled > until both drivers disable it. Does that sound about right? Sounds right. Next step is to see the code. :-) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
