Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> 於 2025年5月9日 週五 下午10:28寫道：
>
> > Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> 於 2025年5月2日 週五 下午4:08寫道：
> > >
> > ...
> > > > > > +static const struct mfd_cell nct6694_devs[] = {
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 0),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 1),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 2),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 3),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 4),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 5),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 6),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 7),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 8),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 9),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 10),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 11),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 12),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 13),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 14),
> > > > > > + MFD_CELL_BASIC("nct6694-gpio", NULL, NULL, 0, 15),
> > > > >
> > > > > These are all identical.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought you were going to use PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO? In fact, you are
> > > > > already using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO since you are calling
> > > > > mfd_add_hotplug_devices(). So you don't need this IDs.
> > > > >
> > > > > MFD_CELL_NAME() should do.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it uses PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, but in my implementation, the
> > > > sub-devices use cell->id instead of platform_device->id, so it doesn't
> > > > affect the current behavior.
> > > > However, if you think there's a better approach or that this should be
> > > > changed for consistency or correctness, I'm happy to update it, please
> > > > let me know your recommendation.
> > > >
> > > > When using MFD_CELL_NAME(), the platform_device->id for the GPIO
> > > > devices is assigned values from 1 to 16, and for the I2C devices from
> > > > 1 to 6, but I need the ID offset to start from 0 instead.
> > >
> > > Oh no, don't do that. mfd_cell isn't supposed to be used outside of MFD.
> > >
> > > Just use the platform_device id-- if you really need to start from 0.
> > >
> > > As an aside, I'm surprised numbering starts from 1.
> > >
> >
> > OK, I will use platform_device->id instead. However, I'm still unsure
> > why the ID starts from1.
> >
> > Additionally, I noticed that when calling mfd_add_devices()
> > separately, the IDs are also assigned consecutively (e.g., GPIO: 1~16,
> > I2C: 17~22, ...).
> >
> > Do you have any recommendations on how I should implement this?
>
> If you are to use this mechanism, you'd have to submit separate
> mfd_add_devices() calls I guess.
>
> However, this all seems a bit silly for simple, contextless (where
> device 3 is identical to device 10, etc) enumeration. Can you use IDA
> instead?
>
Okay, I will switch to using MFD_CELL_NAME() and adopt IDA for
managing sub-device driver IDs in the next patch.
Thanks,
Ming
