Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] mfd: mfd-core: match device tree node against reg property

From: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: "Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	"Bartosz Golaszewski" <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Jean Delvare" <jdelvare@suse.com>,
	"Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	"Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	"Wim Van Sebroeck" <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
	"Shawn Guo" <shawnguo@kernel.org>, "Li Yang" <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Jason Cooper" <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	"Marc Zyngier" <maz@kernel.org>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] mfd: mfd-core: match device tree node against reg property
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:21:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7566ef30fea9740f427f392aabde0eac@walle.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200608142413.GA4106@dell>

Am 2020-06-08 16:24, schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Mon, 25 May 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
>> Am 2020-05-15 12:28, schrieb Lee Jones:
>> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Lee,
>> > >
>> > > Am 2020-04-23 19:45, schrieb Michael Walle:
>> > > > There might be multiple children with the device tree compatible, for
>> > > > example if a MFD has multiple instances of the same function. In this
>> > > > case only the first is matched and the other children get a wrong
>> > > > of_node reference.
>> > > > Add a new option to match also against the unit address of the child
>> > > > node. Additonally, a new helper OF_MFD_CELL_REG is added.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/core.h b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
>> > > > index d01d1299e49d..c2c0ad6b14f3 100644
>> > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/core.h
>> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/core.h
>> > > > @@ -13,8 +13,11 @@
>> > > >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> > > >
>> > > >  #define MFD_RES_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof(struct resource))
>> > > > +#define MFD_OF_REG_VALID	BIT(31)
>> >
>> > What about 64bit platforms?
>> 
>> The idea was to have this as a logical number. I.e. for now you may 
>> only
>> have one subdevice per unique compatible string. In fact, if you have 
>> a
>> look at the ab8500.c, there are multiple "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"
>> subdevices. But there is only one DT node for all three of it. I guess
>> this works as long as you don't use phandles to reference the pwm node
>> in the device tree. Or you don't want to use device tree properties
>> per subdevice (for example the "timeout-sec" of a watchdog device).
> 
> This is not a good example, as the "stericsson,ab8500-pwm" is
> legitimate.  Here we are registering 3 potential devices, but only
> instantiating 1 of them.

Mh?

static const struct mfd_cell ab8500_devs[] = {
..
        OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
                     NULL, NULL, 0, 1, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"),
         OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
                     NULL, NULL, 0, 2, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"),
         OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
                     NULL, NULL, 0, 3, "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"),
..
}

And in pwm-ab8500.c there are three offsets based on the pdev->id.

Am I missing something here?

-- 
-michael