Re: [PATCH v1 02/16] dt-bindings: rtc: mediatek: add bindings for PMIC RTC

[Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>]

On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 17:18 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 25/03/2018 at 03:36:28 +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> > just reply both replies in the same mail
> > 
> > 1.) the power-off device is a part of rtc, use the same registers rtc
> > has and thus it is put as child nodes under the node rtc to reflect the
> > reality of characteristics the rtc has.
> > 
> > Or am I wrong for a certain aspect in these opinions?
> > 
> 
> My point is that it is also part of the PMIC so it may as well be
> registers from the mfd driver which already registers a bunch of devices
> instead of doing unusual stuff from the rtc driver.
> 
> mt6397_rtc->regmap is mt6397_chip->regmap anyway. You have the added
> benefit that if the RTC driver probe fails for some reason, you may
> still be able to probe the reset driver.
> 
> I don't tink there is any benefit having it as a child of the rtc
> device.
> 


really thanks! it's an optional solution I thought it 's fine and worth
doing

but so far I cannot fully make sure of whether mfd can accept two
devices holding overlay IORESOURCE_MEM.

Or do you like Rob's suggestion in [1] ? By which, I tend to embed a
sub-device with platform_device_register_data api in the rtc probe()
instead of treating it as a dt node under rtc node, but which seems
something a bit violates your preferences :(

Just confirm to know which way I should step into before I produce next
version.

[1]
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mediatek/2018-March/012576.html

> > 2) the other sub-functions for the same pmic already created its own
> > dt-binding document belonged to its corresponding subsystem. Don't we
> > really want to follow it them all?
> > 
> 
> Ok, that's fine.
>