[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24781209-928b-dea4-de0b-b103dac8de82@axentia.se>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:35:38 +0100
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>
Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/4] dt-bindings: mux: Increase the number of
arguments in mux-controls
Hi!
You need to have some description on how #mux-control-cells now work.
The previous description is in mux-consumer.yaml and an update there
is needed.
However, I have realized that the adg792a binding uses #mux-control-cells
to indicate if it should expose its three muxes with one mux-control
and operate the muxes in parallel, or if it should be expose three
independent mux-controls. So, the approach in this series to always
have the #mux-control-cells property fixed at <2> when indicating a
state will not work for that binding. And I see no fix for that binding
without adding a new property.
So, I would like a different approach. Since I dislike how mux-controls
-after this series- is not (always) specifying a mux-control like the name
says, but instead optionally a specific state, the new property I would
like to add is #mux-state-cells such that it would always be one more
than #mux-control-cells.
mux: mux-controller {
compatible = "gpio-mux";
#mux-control-cells = <0>;
#mux-state-cells = <1>;
mux-gpios = <...>;
};
can-phy {
compatible = "ti,tcan1043";
...
mux-states = <&mux 1>;
};
That solves the naming issue, the unused argument for mux-conrtrollers
that previously had #mux-control-cells = <0>, and the binding for adg792a
need no longer be inconsistent.
Or, how should this be solved? I'm sure there are other options...
Cheers,
Peter
On 2021-11-23 09:12, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
> Increase the allowed number of arguments in mux-controls to add support for
> passing information regarding the state of the mux to be set, for a given
> device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.yaml | 2 +-
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mux-controller.yaml | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.yaml
> index 0a7c8d64981a..c810b7df39de 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.yaml
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ properties:
> List of gpios used to control the multiplexer, least significant bit first.
>
> '#mux-control-cells':
> - const: 0
> + enum: [ 0, 1, 2 ]
>
> idle-state:
> default: -1
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mux-controller.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mux-controller.yaml
> index 736a84c3b6a5..0b4b067a97bf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mux-controller.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mux-controller.yaml
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ properties:
> pattern: '^mux-controller(@.*|-[0-9a-f]+)?$'
>
> '#mux-control-cells':
> - enum: [ 0, 1 ]
> + enum: [ 0, 1, 2 ]
>
> idle-state:
> $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/int32
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists