From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF9CC433E0 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 15:21:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D442074B for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 15:21:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=walle.cc header.i=@walle.cc header.b="Wg5tn5H1" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730228AbgFHPVc (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2020 11:21:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50354 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729668AbgFHPVb (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2020 11:21:31 -0400 Received: from ssl.serverraum.org (ssl.serverraum.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:151:8464::1:2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BBFAC08C5C2; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ssl.serverraum.org (web.serverraum.org [172.16.0.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ssl.serverraum.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D311822EDB; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 17:21:20 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=walle.cc; s=mail2016061301; t=1591629687; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=w5/wFYr0WrHR2BGw4sUPuRmTmyyZEDrBDXp7xE6Rcqs=; b=Wg5tn5H1faOtr0XnIGPDSGd5kyucCSnasem9z0pro05j+LKp9YmcltmJYSntceVYHtAZHW CWFWp/mjoJ2xvRoKRmfTvpANiM8L6SG62R4HTUanniYR0aE0wa6xqFpGLIlU1qOlaKndyr yx9pmn5kqLEjpxuBMngTNYuCFJX99fM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:21:20 +0200 From: Michael Walle To: Lee Jones Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Rob Herring , Jean Delvare , Guenter Roeck , Thierry Reding , =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= , Wim Van Sebroeck , Shawn Guo , Li Yang , Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , 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 In-Reply-To: <20200608142413.GA4106@dell> References: <20200423174543.17161-1-michael@walle.cc> <20200423174543.17161-4-michael@walle.cc> <67e90dafd67c285158c2c6f67f92edb7@walle.cc> <20200515102848.GH271301@dell> <159e68b4ce53630ef906b2fcbca925bd@walle.cc> <20200608142413.GA4106@dell> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.4 Message-ID: <7566ef30fea9740f427f392aabde0eac@walle.cc> X-Sender: michael@walle.cc Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org 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 >> > > > >> > > > #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