On 02/18/2015 12:58 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
I do agree that using 'simple-bus' to describe only this IP would be an abuse. However, my foundation thought/argument is unchanged. This 'driver' is a hack. It has no functional use besides to work around a problem of semantics and as such has no place in MFD.
Lee, sorry I don't get it. Here you say that using simple-bus is an abuse...
Back onto the simple-bus theme, as this is a syscon device it is a bus of sorts. Have you thought about making it a child of your its syscon node, then using simple-bus to get the OF framework to register the child devices?
... and here you suggest to use simple-bus to register the child devices? I fundamentally disagree that either this registers or syscon in general should in any way be seen as a bus. The chip control registers is an highly unsorted bunch of bits that we try to match with cleanly separated subsystems. This makes it a resource but no bus of any sort. The problem that we try to solve here is not a DT problem but solely driven by the fact that we need something to register platform_devices for pinctrl and reset. The unit we describe in DT is a pinctrl-clock- power-reset-unit - or short chip control. If you argue that mfd is not the right place for this "driver" we'll have to find a different place for it. I remember Mike has no problem with extending early probed clock drivers to register additional platform_devices - so I guess we end up putting it in there ignoring mfd's ability to do it for us. Do we agree on that? Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/