在2024年6月20日六月 上午7:40，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道： [...] >> >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> I believe U-Boot's implementation is correct. As per simple-mfd binding: >> >> ``` >> simple-mfd" - this signifies that the operating system should >> consider all subnodes of the MFD device as separate devices akin to how >> "simple-bus" indicates when to see subnodes as children for a simple >> memory-mapped bus. >> ``` >> >> This reads to me as "if you want sub nodes to be populated as devices >> you need this." >> >> In our case there are "clock" and "reset" node sub nodes which should be >> probed as regular device, so it's true for us. > > No, you already got comment from Rob. > > Your children depend on parent to provide IO address, so this is not > simple-mfd. Rule for simple-mfd is that children do not rely on parent > at all. > Hi Krzysztof, Sorry but can I ask for clarification on "depend on parent to provide IO address", do you mind explaining it a little bit? Does it mean children should get regmap node from a phandle property, not the parent node? Or there should be a reg property for child node to tell register offset etc? There are way too much usage that children "depends" on parents somehow in tree, so I want to confirm my understanding. For boston-platform-regs there are some other PHYs that I may add drivers for them in future, so I certainly want "simple-mfd" to be here -- - Jiaxun
