Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] regulator: max77658: Add ADI MAX77643/54/58/59 Regulator Support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/05/2023 12:36, Arslanbenzer, Zeynep wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 02/05/2023 08:32, Arslanbenzer, Zeynep wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 22/03/2023 06:56, Zeynep Arslanbenzer wrote:
>>>>> Regulator driver for ADI MAX77643/MAX77654/MAX77658/MAX77659.
>>>>>
>>>>> MAX77643/MAX77659 has 1 LDO regulator.
>>>>> MAX77654/MAX77658 has two LDO regulators.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nurettin Bolucu <Nurettin.Bolucu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zeynep Arslanbenzer <Zeynep.Arslanbenzer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static const struct platform_device_id max77658_regulator_id[] = {
>>>>> +	{ "max77643-regulator" },
>>>>> +	{ "max77654-regulator" },
>>>>> +	{ "max77658-regulator" },
>>>>> +	{ "max77659-regulator" },
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need so many entries? They do not differ.
>>>
>>> They are slightly different. Just MAX77659 and MAX77643 regulators have 
>>> exactly the same features. MAX77659 and MAX77643 have 1 LDO regulator but 
>>> others have 2 and the voltage base of the MAX77654 regulators is different 
>>> from others. Should I use the same entry for the MAX77643 and MAX77659?
>>
>> Your driver does not choose regulators based on these compatibles. Your
>> of_device_id table claims all devices are fully compatible and do not
>> differ from regulators point of view. If they are different, you should
>> encode the difference. If not, use only one entry in of_device_id (only
>> of_device_id, not bindings).
> 
> I used id table matching and I did not use of_device_id table. Should I use 
> OF style match instead?

My comment stands regardless which device ID table you use. It's the
same mechanism.

Best regards,
Krzysztof