On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 01:24:51PM +0530, Ashish Chavan wrote: > On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 14:37 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Your testing seems like it's not very good then - you do undersand that > > the problem that this is supposed to be fixing is that this is a multi > > function device? Please look at how other MFDs in the kernel work. > I feel that some info is missing from your view. DA9055 is CODEC + PMIC > but with two different I2C addresses. Actually it is a case of two > different chips enclosed in a single die. There is NO interconnection > between CODEC and PMIC inside DA9055. To me, this seems enough reason to > make two drivers independent from each other and not let one part know > about the existence of other. Actually in near future, there may be > three variants of this chip, This is very similar to things like the TI palmas chips - they have multiple functions on different I2C addresses. The chip still gets instantiated a single time and then the subdevices are instantiated like a MFD by the core device. > In my opinion, keeping the drivers independent will also help in > re-using existing drivers "as it is" for any of the above combination. It shouldn't make a huge difference here.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
