On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:

Lee Jones [off-list ref] 於 2025年6月13日 週五 下午9:11寫道：

quoted

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:

quoted

Lee Jones [off-list ref] 於 2025年6月12日 週四 下午11:23寫道：

quoted

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025, Ming Yu wrote:

quoted

Dear Lee,

Thank you for reviewing,

Lee Jones [off-list ref] 於 2025年6月12日 週四 下午10:00寫道：

quoted

...

quoted

quoted

+static const struct mfd_cell nct6694_devs[] = {
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 0),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 1),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 2),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 3),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 4),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 5),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 6),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 7),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 8),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 9),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 10),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 11),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 12),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 13),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 14),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 15),
+
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 0),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 1),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 2),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 3),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 4),
+     MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-i2c", NULL, NULL, 0, 5),

Why have we gone back to this silly numbering scheme?

What happened to using IDA in the child driver?

In a previous version, I tried to maintain a static IDA in each
sub-driver. However, I didn’t consider the case where multiple NCT6694
devices are bound to the same driver — in that case, the IDs are not
fixed and become unusable for my purpose.

Not sure I understand.

As far as I know, if I maintain the IDA in the sub-drivers and use
multiple MFD_CELL_NAME("nct6694-gpio") entries in the MFD, the first
NCT6694 device bound to the GPIO driver will receive IDs 0~15.
However, when a second NCT6694 device is connected to the system, it
will receive IDs 16~31.
Because of this behavior, I switched back to using platform_device->id.

Each of the devices will probe once.

The first one will be given 0, the second will be given 1, etc.

Why would you give multiple IDs to a single device bound to a driver?

The device exposes multiple peripherals — 16 GPIO controllers, 6 I2C
adapters, 2 CAN FD controllers, and 2 watchdog timers. Each peripheral
is independently addressable, has its own register region, and can
operate in isolation. The IDs are used to distinguish between these
instances.
For example, the GPIO driver will be probed 16 times, allocating 16
separate gpio_chip instances to control 8 GPIO lines each.

If another device binds to this driver, it is expected to expose
peripherals with the same structure and behavior.

I still don't see why having a per-device IDA wouldn't render each
probed device with its own ID.  Just as you have above.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]