linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] devicetree: bindings: mux: reg-mux: Update bindings for reg-mux for new property

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <66283781-69d6-4d0a-ada4-3a6bf4744a37@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 00:33:17 +0530
From: "Vankar, Chintan" <c-vankar@...com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, <s-vadapalli@...com>,
        <danishanwar@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Nishanth
 Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] devicetree: bindings: mux: reg-mux: Update
 bindings for reg-mux for new property

Hello Rob,

On 3/4/2025 9:09 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 03:53:05PM +0530, Chintan Vankar wrote:
>> DT-binding of reg-mux is defined in such a way that one need to provide
>> register offset and mask in a "mux-reg-masks" property and corresponding
>> register value in "idle-states" property. This constraint forces to define
>> these values in such a way that "mux-reg-masks" and "idle-states" must be
>> in sync with each other. This implementation would be more complex if
>> specific register or set of registers need to be configured which has
>> large memory space. Introduce a new property "mux-reg-masks-state" which
>> allow to specify offset, mask and value as a tuple in a single property.
> 
> Maybe in hindsight that would have been better, but having 2 ways to
> specify the same thing that we have to maintain forever is not an
> improvement.
> 
> No one is making you use this binding. If you have a large number of
> muxes, then maybe you should use a specific binding.
> 

Thank you for reviewing the patch. The reason behind choosing mux
subsystem is working and implementation of mmio driver. As we can see
that implementing this new property in mux-controller is almost
identical to mmio driver, and it would make it easier to define and 
extend mux-controller's functionality. If we introduce the new driver
than that would be most likely a clone of mmio driver.

Let me know if implementation would be accepted by adding a new
compatible for it.


Regards,
Chintan.

> Rob