From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rnayak@codeaurora.org (Rajendra Nayak)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 08:07:42 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 5/9] clk: qcom: gcc-msm8960: add child devices support.
In-Reply-To: <55CD5BD2.3070907@codeaurora.org>
References: <1436348838-22671-1-git-send-email-rnayak@codeaurora.org>
 <1436348838-22671-6-git-send-email-rnayak@codeaurora.org>
 <20150811224902.GO2839@codeaurora.org> <55CB0B26.2020105@linaro.org>
 <55CC1CFE.7000005@codeaurora.org> <20150814004206.GU26614@codeaurora.org>
 <55CD5BD2.3070907@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <55E660F6.3020007@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Stephen,

>>>>> Also, I don't like having a subnode in DT. Why can't we use the
>>>>> same node as the GCC node and create a virtual child device here
>>>>> for tsens? We can assign the same of_node that this platform
>>>>> device has so that DT keeps working correctly.
>>>
>>> So the current driver looks up data based on compatible strings.
>>
>> The tsens device is always the same piece of hardware. The only
>
> Well, not always. The one in 8960 does need additional initializations,
> requires you to save/restore context as it can be powered off
> not being in an always powered on domain etc.
>
>> thing that's changing is the qfprom data and the number of
>> sensors. So we should be looking at the qfprom compatible string
>
> How? Tsens uses nvmem framework apis to read the qfprom atleast
> in this series.
>
>> to figure out how to interpret the qfprom data which would
>> include the number of sensors and how the data is encoded.
>>
>>> So you suggesting to create a virtual child device for gcc and
>>> associate the gcc DT node to it? (And have the tsens compatible
>>> mentioned as part of the gcc DT node?)
>>
>> No. The driver should work just fine without having to
>> interrogate the device's compatible string. If we still need the
>> compatible check for some reason, then we can always match based
>> on qcom,gcc-msm8960, qcom,gcc-apq8064, etc. But I don't see why
>
> Thats not quite possible I guess. 2 drivers (gcc and tsens) matching
> the same compatibles? Will it not just depend on which ends up being
> the first match?

Any thoughts on how to move forward with this?

I tried what you were suggesting, and here's what I had to do to get
things working

* Created a gcc node in DT with gcc and tsens compatibles, with gcc and
tsens properties
* gcc driver probes the device/node first given gcc is registered with
a core_initcall()
* creates a virtual child device attaching the same of_node (having
both gcc and tsens compatibles)
* gcc ends up probing the virtual device/node _again_ (due to the gcc
compatible match), fails
* At a later point, tsens driver gets registered (using module_initcall)
ends up probing the virtual child node and succeeds

Is this what you had in mind, or am I at the wrong end of the stick?

regards,
Rajendra