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:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 19:01:41 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_c_skakit@quicinc.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, quic_collinsd@quicinc.com,
        quic_subbaram@quicinc.com, quic_jprakash@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 6/9] mfd: pm8008: Use i2c_new_dummy_device() API
Message-ID: <YzXdhVN/Zp7DDIzB@google.com>
References: <YsLhxx+L3+GJDRyO@google.com>
 <bcc5f059-b991-296a-bba6-9cb1236097f2@quicinc.com>
 <Ys1tYAO39LKzEAOE@google.com>
 <dc737abb-041b-491a-14f1-a584f9e64a3d@quicinc.com>
 <CAE-0n528QaTtZFp=WAaHShegFRpKVN_67jQfUJTtsRPr6s--zA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52039cd1-4390-7abb-d296-0eb7ac0c3b15@quicinc.com>
 <Yuz2O+lZ5W7RviuA@google.com>
 <CAE-0n507SLeYB7XVzGFk=RO6YjOPoGpux+_N2AyrmL354mQJ-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YzQf7hf15vvLeGse@google.com>
 <CAE-0n50cX5ky3By976RTecKkpeMoAjoBA4tYuWSZ150JfS9wiQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAE-0n50cX5ky3By976RTecKkpeMoAjoBA4tYuWSZ150JfS9wiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> Quoting Lee Jones (2022-09-28 03:20:30)
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to simply separate the instantiation of
> > the 2 I2C devices?  Similar to what you suggested [0] in v9.  That way
> > they can handle their own resources and we can avoid all of the I2C
> > dummy / shared Regmap passing faff.
> >
> > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAE-0n53G-atsuwqcgNvi3nvWyiO3P=pSj5zDUMYj0ELVYJE54Q@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> 
> You can continue reading the thread[1]. My understanding is it's one
> chip that responds on two i2c addresses, thus we don't describe that as
> two i2c device nodes in DT. Instead we describe one node and use the
> dummy API to make the second i2c device.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yk3NkNK3e+fgj4eG@sirena.org.uk/

As Mark says, it's probably 2 separate dies that have been encased in
the same IC and are otherwise unconnected.  Not sure I understand the
comment about not requiring another 'struct device'.  It will still
require that whether it's a platform device or an I2C device, right?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]