[PATCH V2 2/2] regulator: mt6323: Add support for MT6323 regulator

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello John,

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:46 AM, John Crispin <blogic at openwrt.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 25/01/2016 14:25, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
>> <javier at dowhile0.org> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> In fact, the kernel is currently not matching the compatible, it is
>>> only matching because you provided a .of_compatible is provided in the
>>> mfd_cell.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry my English was a bit off in this paragraph...
>>
>> I tried to say that OF does not traverse MFD sub-devices and lookups a
>> device driver that matches the compatible automatically since a MFD
>> device is not a bus. Currently it is only trying to match a compatible
>> string because the mfd_cell has a .of_compatible set so an of_node is
>> assigned on mfd_add_device().
>>
>> But it is failing to match because no OF device table is provided and
>> the platform bus match callback is falling back to the driver .name to
>> match so the compatible is not really used as Mark said.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Javier
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> just so i am sure to have understood properly. i just need to drop the
> compatible string from [1/2] and resend. if this is the case i will fix
> the mt6397 binding doc while at it.
>

And you will also need to remove the .of_compatible =
"mediatek,mt6323-regulator" from patch "[PATCH V2 4/4] mfd: mediatek:
add MT6323 support to MT6397 driver" since otherwise an
MODALIAS=of:foo will be reported instead of an MODALIAS=platform:foo

But if I were you, I would keep the MFD driver and DT binding as they
are and provide a .id_table and .of_match_table to the mt6323
regulator platform driver.

I'll write patches for the mt6397 regulator driver adding those tables
since it has the same issue and you can see what I mean.

>         John

Best regards,
Javier