On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:07:39AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 9:53 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 6:11 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/11] i2c: Enhance i2c_new_ancillary_device API > > > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 12:45 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/11] i2c: Enhance i2c_new_ancillary_device > > > > > > API On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:43 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Perhaps we should first think through what an ancillary device > > > > > > > > really is. My understanding is that it is used to talk to > > > > > > > > secondary addresses of a multi-address I2C slave device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I mentioned somewhere before, this is not the case. Ancillary > > > > > > > devices are when one *driver* handles more than one address. > > > > > > > Everything else has been handled differently in the past (for all > > > > > > > the uses I am aware of). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, I have another idea which is so simple that I wonder if it > > > > > > > maybe has already been discussed so far? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * have two regs in the bindings > > > > > > > * use the second reg with i2c_new_client_device to instantiate the > > > > > > > RTC sibling. 'struct i2c_board_info', which is one parameter, should > > > > > > > have enough options to pass data, e.g it has a software_node. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should work or did I miss something here? > > > > > > > > > > > > That should work, mostly (i2c_new_dummy_device() also calls > > > > > > i2c_new_client_device()). And as i2c_board_info has an of_node > > > > > > member (something I had missed before!), the new I2C device can > > > > > > access the clocks in the DT node using the standard way. > > > > > > > > > > Looks like, I cannot assign of_node member like below as it results in > > > > > pinctrl failure[1] during device bind. > > > > > > > > > > info.of_node = client->dev.of_node; > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > pinctrl-rzg2l 11030000.pinctrl: pin P43_0 already requested by 3-0012; > > > > > cannot claim for 3-006f pinctrl-rzg2l 11030000.pinctrl: pin-344 > > > > > (3-006f) status -22 pinctrl-rzg2l 11030000.pinctrl: could not request > > > > > pin 344 (P43_0) from group pmic on device pinctrl-rzg2l > > > > > raa215300 3-006f: Error applying setting, reverse things back > > > > > > > > Where do you have a reference to pin P43_0 in your DT? > > > > > > The reference to pin P43_0 is added in the PMIC node. > > > > > > I have done modification on my board to test PMIC INT# on RZ/G2L SMARC EVK > > > by wiring R83 on SoM module and PMOD0 PIN7. > > > > > > > The last versions you posted did not have any pinctrl properties? > > > > > > By default, PMIC_INT# is not populated RZ/G2L SMARC EVK, so I haven't added > > > Support for PMIC_INT# for the patches posted till date. > > > > > > Yesterday I checked with HW people, is there a way to enable PMIC_INT# > > > and they told me to do the above HW modification. > > > > > > Today I found this issue, with this modified HW and PMIC INT# enabled on the DT, > > > while assigning of_node of PMIC with info.of_node. It is just a coincidence. > > > > IC. > > > > So you now have two Linux devices pointing to the same DT node, > > causing pinctrl issues... > > So don't set info.of_node? ;-) > > Without of_node, devm_clk_get() and friends falls back to registered > clkdevs. So you could call clk_register_clkdev() from within the > PMIC driver, and can keep on using devm_clk_get_optional() in the > ISL1208 driver. Seriously, how many hacks are we piling ? :-) > If that fails, there's also software_node.properties, or even the good > old platform_data... -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
