Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 2/4] mfd: Support ROHM BD9576MUF and BD9573MUF

On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 12:57 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:

quoted

Hello Lee,

On Fri, 2020-11-27 at 08:32 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

quoted

Add core support for ROHM BD9576MUF and BD9573MUF PMICs which
are
mainly used to power the R-Car series processors.

Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <
matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
---
 drivers/mfd/Kconfig              |  11 ++++
 drivers/mfd/Makefile             |   1 +
 drivers/mfd/rohm-bd9576.c        | 108
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd957x.h  |  59 +++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/mfd/rohm-generic.h |   2 +
 5 files changed, 181 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/rohm-bd9576.c
 create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/rohm-bd957x.h

Looks like a possible candidate for "simple-mfd-i2c".

Could you look into that please?

I must admit I didn't know about "simple-mfd-i2c". Good thing to
know
when working with simple devices :) Is this a new thing?

Yes, it's new.

quoted

I am unsure I understand the idea fully. Should users put all the
different regamp configs in this file and just add the device IDs
with
pointer to correct config? (BD9576 and BD9573 need volatile
ranges).
Also, does this mean each sub-device should have own node and own
compatible in DT to get correctly load and probed? I guess this
would
need a buy-in from Rob too then.

You should describe the H/W in DT.

After re-reading this - do you mean one should describe for example the
register ranges in DT? I don't see code which parses the volatile
ranges or other regmap configs here. I assume no. I guess you replied
to the question whether each sub device would need own node and
compatible.

Best Regards
	Matti Vaittinen