Re: [PATCH 1/4] documentation: add palmas dts definition

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 02/28/2013 01:52 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Thursday 28 February 2013 12:02 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/17/2013 10:11 PM, J Keerthy wrote:
>> +- interrupt-parent : The parent interrupt controller.
>> +
>> +Optional node:
>> +- Child nodes contain in the palmas. The palmas family is made of
>> several
>> +  variants that support a different number of features.
>> +  The child nodes will thus depend of the capability of the variant.
>> Are there DT bindings for those child nodes anywhere?
>>
>> Representing each internal component as a separate DT node feels a
>> little like designing the DT bindings to model the Linux-internal MFD
>> structure. DT bindings should be driven by the HW design and OS-agnostic.
>>
>>  From a DT perspective, is there any need at all to create a separate DT
>> node for each component? This would only be needed or useful if the
>> child IP blocks (and hence DT bindings for those blocks) could be
>> re-used in other top-level devices that aren't represented by this
>> top-level ti,palmas DT binding. Are the HW IP blocks here re-used
>> anywhere, or will they be?
> 
> 
> I dont think that child IP block can be used outside of the palma
> although other mfd device may have same IP.

That sounds like pretty much the definition of re-using the IP block...

> The child driver very much used the palma's API for register access and
> they can not be separated untill driver is write completely independent
> of palmas API. Currently, child driver include the palma header, uses
> palma mfd stcruture and plama's api for accessing registers.

The DT binding and compatible values should not be influenced by
OS-specific driver implementation details. DT bindings are supposed to
be (as near as possible) a pure HW description, which (many different)
OSs parse, and map to their internal driver structure as appropriate.

The above is of course just a comment on how DT is supposed to work; I'm
not saying anything here re: what's the most appropriate DT structure
for this device.

>>> +    palmas_pmic {
>> Just "pmic" seems simpler, although I dare say the node name isn't
>> really used for anything.
> 
> Stephen,
> Just curios, why do we require the palma_pmic node at all, We can start
> with regulator node directly. Is it not too much nested here?

That was the question I was asking in my original email. But I also
commented on the patch as written, in case the answer to my question was
that the child DT nodes made sense.