On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:17:58AM +0100, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
If it is ok for you I will add "id" parameter in mfd driver and forward it to the sub-devices drivers to be able to distinguish the hardware blocks
Please don't top post.
No, it's not okay. If the counter sizes are different, then have a property for the counter size. Describe how they are different without numbering them. If you can't describe the differences, then it shouldn't matter which ones the OS picks to use.
2016-11-22 18:18 GMT+01:00 Lee Jones lee.jones@linaro.org:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
[snip]
"st,stm32-iio-timer5"
"st,stm32-iio-timer6"
"st,stm32-iio-timer7"
"st,stm32-iio-timer8"
"st,stm32-iio-timer9"
"st,stm32-iio-timer10"
"st,stm32-iio-timer11"
"st,stm32-iio-timer12"
"st,stm32-iio-timer13"
"st,stm32-iio-timer14"
I doubt the h/w manual calls these "IIO timers".
We can't do this. This is a binding for a driver, not for the hardware.
Unfortunately each instance for the hardware IP have little differences like which triggers they could accept or size of the counter register, and I doesn't have value inside the hardware to distinguish them so the only way I found is to use compatible.
Can't you represent these as properties?
-- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
-- Benjamin Gaignard
Graphic Study Group
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog