Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-18827-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2024 10:49:20 +0100
Message-Id: <CY8DP6O8C72H.2XTJT3P7XZAKE@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
Cc: "Karel Balej" <balejk@matfyz.cz>, "Lee Jones" <lee@kernel.org>, "Rob
 Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
 "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, =?utf-8?q?Duje_Mihanovi=C4=87?=
 <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>, <~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht>,
 <phone-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] regulator: add 88pm88x regulators driver
To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>
From: "Karel Balej" <karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <20231228100208.2932-1-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <20231228100208.2932-5-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
 <008ee9d6-6259-43df-9af3-2dc9877cfe94@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <008ee9d6-6259-43df-9af3-2dc9877cfe94@sirena.org.uk>

Mark,

On Fri Jan 5, 2024 at 4:18 PM CET, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:39:13AM +0100, Karel Balej wrote:
>
> > @@ -68,6 +68,21 @@ static struct mfd_cell pm886_devs[] =3D {
> >  		.num_resources =3D ARRAY_SIZE(pm88x_onkey_resources),
> >  		.resources =3D pm88x_onkey_resources,
> >  	},
> > +	{
> > +		.name =3D "88pm88x-regulator",
> > +		.id =3D PM88X_REGULATOR_ID_LDO2,
> > +		.of_compatible =3D "marvell,88pm88x-regulator",
> > +	},
>
> Why are we adding an of_compatible here?  It's redundant, the MFD split
> is a feature of Linux internals not of the hardware, and the existing
> 88pm8xx MFD doesn't use them.

in a feedback to my MFD series, Rob Herring pointed out that there is no
need to have a devicetree node for a subdevice if it only contains
"compatible" as the MFD driver can instantiate subdevices itself. I
understood that this is what he was referring to, but now I suspect that
it is sufficient for the mfd_cell.name to be set to the subdevice driver
name for this - is that correct?

Thank you,
K. B.