On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:40:01AM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> On 01/11/18 10:28, Charles Keepax wrote:

> > So pulling this out from earlier discussions in this thread,
> > it seems I can happily move all the child device registration
> > into device tree. I will also try this for the next version of
> > the patch, unless anyone wants to object? But it does change
> > the DT binding quite a lot as the individual sub drivers now
> > each require their own node rather than one single unified
> > Lochnagar node.

> We went through this discussion with the Madera MFD patches. I had
> originally implemented it using DT to register the child drivers and
> it was nice in some ways each driver having its own node. But Mark
> and Rob didn't like it so I went back to non-DT child registration with
> all sharing the parent MFD node. It would be nice if we could stick to
> one way of doing it so that Cirrus drivers don't flip-flop between
> different styles of DT binding.

The basic concern I have is encoding the current Linux idea of how to
split the subfunctions up into drivers into an ABI - the clocks in CODEC
drivers is the obvious example, they might want to be in the clock API
in future.  If there's a very direct mapping onto individual hardware
blocks that worries me a lot less since it's more obviously reflecting
how the hardware is designed.