[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ybeq5dNYjN4GOzdV@robh.at.kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:19:49 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>
Cc: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: ti,tcan104x-can: Document
mux-states property
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:40:01PM +0530, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
> On some boards, for routing CAN signals from controller to transceivers,
> muxes might need to be set. This can be implemented using mux-states
> property. Therefore, document the same in the respective bindings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,tcan104x-can.yaml | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,tcan104x-can.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,tcan104x-can.yaml
> index 6107880e5246..5b2b08016635 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,tcan104x-can.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,tcan104x-can.yaml
> @@ -37,6 +37,18 @@ properties:
> max bit rate supported in bps
> minimum: 1
>
> + mux-states:
> + description:
> + mux controller node to route the signals from controller to
> + transceiver. Depending on the mux chip and the control lines
> + in it, the first and second parameters can be used for
> + representing control line and state. The number of arguments
> + is to be used based on '#mux-state-cells' property in the
> + mux-controller node. If '#mux-state-cells' is equal to
> + one then, then the argument to be used would be the state.
> + If it is set to two, then the first argument is the control
> + line and the second argument would be its corresponding state.
No need to redefine how a common property works here. What you do need
to define is how many entries and what they are for if more than 1.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists