On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:17:58AM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:

If it is ok for you I will add "id" parameter in mfd driver and
forward it to the sub-devices drivers
to be able to distinguish the hardware blocks

Please don't top post.

No, it's not okay. If the counter sizes are different, then have a 
property for the counter size. Describe how they are different without 
numbering them. If you can't describe the differences, then it shouldn't 
matter which ones the OS picks to use.

2016-11-22 18:18 GMT+01:00 Lee Jones [off-list ref]:

quoted

On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:

quoted

[snip]

quoted

quoted

+     "st,stm32-iio-timer5"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer6"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer7"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer8"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer9"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer10"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer11"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer12"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer13"
+     "st,stm32-iio-timer14"

I doubt the h/w manual calls these "IIO timers".

quoted

quoted

quoted

We can't do this. This is a binding for a driver, not for the hardware.

Unfortunately each instance for the hardware IP have little
differences like which triggers they could accept or size of the
counter register,
and I doesn't have value inside the hardware to distinguish them so
the only way I found is to use compatible.

Can't you represent these as properties?

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

-- 
Benjamin Gaignard

Graphic Study Group

Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog