On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 17:18 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 25/03/2018 at 03:36:28 +0800, Sean Wang wrote: > > just reply both replies in the same mail > > > > 1.) the power-off device is a part of rtc, use the same registers rtc > > has and thus it is put as child nodes under the node rtc to reflect the > > reality of characteristics the rtc has. > > > > Or am I wrong for a certain aspect in these opinions? > > > > My point is that it is also part of the PMIC so it may as well be > registers from the mfd driver which already registers a bunch of devices > instead of doing unusual stuff from the rtc driver. > > mt6397_rtc->regmap is mt6397_chip->regmap anyway. You have the added > benefit that if the RTC driver probe fails for some reason, you may > still be able to probe the reset driver. > > I don't tink there is any benefit having it as a child of the rtc > device. >
really thanks! it's an optional solution I thought it 's fine and worth doing but so far I cannot fully make sure of whether mfd can accept two devices holding overlay IORESOURCE_MEM. Or do you like Rob's suggestion in [1] ? By which, I tend to embed a sub-device with platform_device_register_data api in the rtc probe() instead of treating it as a dt node under rtc node, but which seems something a bit violates your preferences :( Just confirm to know which way I should step into before I produce next version. [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2018-March/012576.html > > 2) the other sub-functions for the same pmic already created its own > > dt-binding document belonged to its corresponding subsystem. Don't we > > really want to follow it them all? > > > > Ok, that's fine. >
