[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e4c6895-c06f-3412-26ea-dfb02d52d328@axentia.se>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 19:38:09 +0100
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
"Hartmut Knaack" <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
"Peter Meerwald-Stadler" <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes
On 2016-11-24 16:18, Peter Rosin wrote:
> v3 -> v4 changes
> - added support for having the mux-controller in a child node of a
> mux-consumer if it is a sole consumer, to hopefully even further satisfy
> the complaint from Rob (and later Lars-Peter) about dt complexity.
> - the above came at the cost of some rather horrible refcounting code,
> please review and suggest how it should be done...
>
> v2 -> v3 changes
> - have the mux-controller in the parent node of any mux-controller consumer,
> to hopefully satisfy complaint from Rob about dt complexity.
I did some further tests and both of these attempts to support fancier
devicetree bindings have severe problems. I will remove them for v5 and
go back to having a phandle reference to the mux-controller from the
consumer (unless I get some revelation of course and just get it). I'm
simply not yet understanding the driver model well enough to pull this
off at the moment...
Cheers,
Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists