On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 17:18 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

On 25/03/2018 at 03:36:28 +0800, Sean Wang wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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.