Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 18:27:13 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc:     Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <chunyan.zhang@unisoc.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: regulator: Add bindings for Unisoc's
 SC2730 regulator
Message-ID: <YzSD8cQrFpIWunls@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20211008031953.339461-1-zhang.lyra@gmail.com>
 <20211008031953.339461-3-zhang.lyra@gmail.com>
 <YY5wPh0rwRvFjSRG@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAAfSe-uA3iowafC25zRqoTSaub1PbOzUvQgukLm=szEge_abvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yyw2nAAjN6NxmS09@google.com>
 <YyxKSjMPlGPfegpJ@sirena.org.uk>
 <YzFNvByGG7ADWfmd@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="a+ETSZRf0TrB1BfO"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YzFNvByGG7ADWfmd@google.com>
Precedence: bulk


--a+ETSZRf0TrB1BfO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 07:59:08AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2022, Mark Brown wrote:

> > If people want to describe the individual regulators that'd be
> > less of an issue, it's mainly when you're nesting what's
> > effectively another MFD within a parent MFD that it's just noise
> > that's being added to the DT.

> As I say, I haven't studied this use-case.

> These comments were designed to be more generic.

> What do you mean by nested MFDs?

Given that individual regulators tend to be separate physical IPs in the
chip if you create a single device tree node that lumps them together
you still need to also represent the individual regulators as well so
that collection is functioning like a MFD does except not on a chip
boundary.

> > > Can you imagine describing an SoC, which can be considered as a huge
> > > MFD, with only a single node?

> > Honestly we should be arranging things so they're more like that,
> > at least using overlays for the internals of the SoC so you don't
> > have to rebuild the whole DT for updates to the SoC internals.

> Right, there would be one device root node.  However each function;
> clock providers, regulator controllers, PWMs, GPIOs, networking
> (various), reset, watchdog, etc would have their own nodes.  Rather
> than attempting to describe everything in the parent's node.

We don't split things up by function, we split them up by IP - we don't
just allocate a compatible for all the networking related functionality
simply because there's a networking subsystem in Linux for example.

--a+ETSZRf0TrB1BfO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmM0g/AACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CUCAf/Q6E+WKiJ2KGknP5+06b4wxdfhbz+BpVH7gWrCq9iry5COPHP2d/vtR0D
PywhTxxFTjxjL9AHcyxMpkrT7Vp2bHkQD1gdsRehHDgNbTAFMR0G2D8VU3MpxKPO
d79P2y8PGARmVuITXGEOMpentnHb+tWYOzNCGKfpjzG8MWsukT0qVYPu9KKpI1d9
2AwAmGy8axUtSUA5atMYN37HDtyB1aP5FaXPmY14MGr/QtifBpt/dNcEduZDxf50
x1E4t6NIr2ratmhawivwudR6ModSXw4AyTYXgcsXuZvDnofhDyTEE44WrExgqbS+
S0h8CtCK7sscoqwfNPXPcxEla76H/Q==
=GLRW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--a+ETSZRf0TrB1BfO--