RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: act8945a: add regulator driver for ACT8945A

[Yang, Wenyou]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Korsgaard [mailto:jacmet@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Korsgaard
> Sent: 2016年1月14日 15:28
> To: Yang, Wenyou <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>; Mark
> Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ferre, Nicolas
> <Nicolas.FERRE@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Javier Martinez
> Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: act8945a: add regulator driver for
> ACT8945A
> 
> >>>>> "Yang," == Yang, Wenyou <Wenyou.Yang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>  >> Isn't the regulator part of the act8945a identical to act8865? Can't we just use
> the  >> existing act8865-regulator.c driver? (E.G. support 8865 variant in the mfd
> driver,  >> but only register the regulator sub device?)
> 
>  > Yes, the regulator part of the act8945a is identical to act8865.
> 
>  > But the act8865-regulator driver is a struct i2c_driver, and the mfd  > sub-
> device driver is a platform_driver driver, it is not easy to use  > it.
> 
> But the mfd driver could support the act8865 variant as well (by only registering
> the regulator mfd cell).

I still don't understand.

The MFD sub device is registered as a platform device, the existing act8865 driver is registered as an i2c_driver. How do they match? :)

Could you point out which exiting driver for me to reference.  Thank you!


Best Regards,
Wenyou Yang