RE: [PATCH v4 1/2] regulator: act8945a: add regulator driver for ACT8945A

From: Yang, Wenyou
Date: Tue Feb 02 2016 - 21:29:22 EST


Hi Peter,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Korsgaard [mailto:jacmet@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Korsgaard
> Sent: 2016年2月3日 1:42
> To: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Yang, Wenyou <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxx>; Liam Girdwood
> <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Pawel Moll
> <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>; Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Kumar
> Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>; Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@xxxxxxxxx>; Ferre,
> Nicolas <Nicolas.FERRE@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] regulator: act8945a: add regulator driver for
> ACT8945A
>
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:20:08AM +0000, Yang, Wenyou wrote:
> >> > > +static const struct of_device_id act8945a_pmic_of_match[] = {
> >> > > + { .compatible = "active-semi,act8945a-regulator" },
> >> > > + { },
> >> > > +};
> >> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, act8945a_pmic_of_match);
>
> >> > This seems mostly OK but why do we have a compatible string here -
> shouldn't >> > the MFD be able to instantiate the regulator function without
> needing this?
>
> >> Because I got feedback from Javier for the act8945a-charger patches of this
> MFD series, >> He said missing the OF match table will cause the module
> autoloading broken.
>
> >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-January/398113.html
>
> >> What do you think about it?
>
> > If then device is not being loaded from the DT (and it shouldn't be, the > device
> looks like it should be instantiated directly by the MFD as it > can't exist
> separately to that MFD) an OF table will do nothing.
>
> To add to the confusion, the regulator part of the chip is actually identical to
> act8865, so it could use the existing regulator driver / compatible, except that it
> binds to the platform bus instead of i2c.

Thank you for your opinion.

But I think It is better to make it a separate driver, the driver is simpler.

>
> --
> Bye, Peter Korsgaard


Best Regards,
Wenyou Yang