RE: [PATCH v2 2/8] regulator: max77658: Add ADI MAX77643/54/58/59 Regulator Support

["Arslanbenzer, Zeynep" <Zeynep.Arslanbenzer@analog.com>]

On Tue, 2 May 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>On 02/05/2023 08:32, Arslanbenzer, Zeynep wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2023 06:56, Zeynep Arslanbenzer wrote:
>>>> Regulator driver for ADI MAX77643/MAX77654/MAX77658/MAX77659.
>>>>
>>>> MAX77643/MAX77659 has 1 LDO regulator.
>>>> MAX77654/MAX77658 has two LDO regulators.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nurettin Bolucu <Nurettin.Bolucu@analog.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zeynep Arslanbenzer <Zeynep.Arslanbenzer@analog.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct platform_device_id max77658_regulator_id[] = {
>>>> +	{ "max77643-regulator" },
>>>> +	{ "max77654-regulator" },
>>>> +	{ "max77658-regulator" },
>>>> +	{ "max77659-regulator" },
>>>
>>> Why do you need so many entries? They do not differ.
>> 
>> They are slightly different. Just MAX77659 and MAX77643 regulators have 
>> exactly the same features. MAX77659 and MAX77643 have 1 LDO regulator but 
>> others have 2 and the voltage base of the MAX77654 regulators is different 
>> from others. Should I use the same entry for the MAX77643 and MAX77659?
>
>Your driver does not choose regulators based on these compatibles. Your
>of_device_id table claims all devices are fully compatible and do not
>differ from regulators point of view. If they are different, you should
>encode the difference. If not, use only one entry in of_device_id (only
>of_device_id, not bindings).

I used id table matching and I did not use of_device_id table. Should I use 
OF style match instead?

Best regards,
Zeynep