On 18/11/16 16:59, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2016-11-18 16:35, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:48:03PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-gpio.txt | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-gpio.txt >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-gpio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-gpio.txt >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..73699a37824f >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-gpio.txt >>> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ >>> +GPIO-based multiplexer controller bindings >>> + >>> +Define what GPIO pins are used to control a multiplexer. Or several >>> +multiplexers, if the same pins control more than one multiplexer. >> >> I think this makes sense in your case, but I think it is too complicated >> for a non-shared case. Perhaps mux-gpios should be used directly (i.e. >> in the adc-mux node) and control-muxes only used for the shared case. >> >> Part of me feels like you are working around in DT the GPIO subsystem >> limitation that it can't share GPIO lines. Either this could be fixed >> in some way in the GPIO subsystem, or the mux subsys could deal with it. >> You just have to look up if you already have a mux registered for the >> same GPIOs. Of course, that may make the mux subsys pretty much GPIO >> only, but I'm having a hard time thinking how you would have shared >> muxes that are not GPIO controlled. Any other control would be >> integrated into the mux itself. > > But if someone wants to mux an adc line with a mux that is some kind of > integrated i2c device, you'd have to add extra code to the iio muxer > driver to handle that case. Or fork it. Or build something like the > i2c muxer infrastructure and separate out the mux control in small > drivers and handle the generic iio muxing centrally. But then someone > else uses that i2c device to instead mux an i2c bus, and you'd end up > with code duplication when that same muxer control code is added under > drivers/i2c/muxes. > > With the proposed solution, this is unified. > > I'd just hate to see drivers for muxers added under drivers/i2c/muxes > that do little more that control a mux that happens to be used to mux > an i2c bus, but are generic muxers that could equally well mux something > else. Even if the control is integrated into the mux, what the mux is > actually used for should perhaps not determine where its driver should > live. > > Anyway, I don't know what to make with your suggestion, I just don't > see the path forward (not enough experience with the kernel and/or gpio > code). And it would be a limited solution (GPIO only,a s you say) so it > doesn't feel right. Also worth pointing out here the possibility of multi pole muxes... Relays are ultimately muxes as well (be it slow ones ;) A quick google fed me: TI SN74LS153 for example. This one is digital only though... Analog option (in both senses) is: http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ADG888.pdf So these 'look' the same as two single muxes wired to the same GPIOs. > > Is there perhaps some way to keep the complicated shared case work as > is (or equivalently, the exact details are not important), and also > provide a simpler in-node thingy to glue a mux control to a consumer > w/o pointing to it with a phandle, but still have the same mux driver > handle both cases? No, I'm not a devicetree guru, so I don't see a > solution for that either, but maybe someone else does? > > Perhaps the consumer could look for the mux control in first the > phandle, as in my proposal. If not found, it could also look for > a mux provider bound to child node. > > adc-mux { > compatible = "iio-mux"; > io-channels = <&adc 0>; > io-channel-names = "parent"; > > mux-control { > compatible = "mux-gpio"; > mux-gpios = <&pioA 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>, > <&pioA 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > }; > > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <0>; > > sync-1@0 { > reg = <0>; > }; > /* ... */ > }; > > Or perhaps look in a parent node: > > mux-control { > compatible = "mux-gpio"; > mux-gpios = <&pioA 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>, > <&pioA 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; > > adc-mux { > compatible = "iio-mux"; > io-channels = <&adc 0>; > io-channel-names = "parent"; > > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <0>; > > sync-1@0 { > reg = <0>; > }; > /* ... */ > }; > }; > > With the last suggestion, you could have multiple children of the > mux-control node for the complicated case where it controls more > than one mux. Not too bad? Hmm, what does the driver for the > mux-control node have to do to have drivers tied to its children? > > Maybe this last layout should be the only thing supported? Good > enough for me anyway... > > Cheers, > Peter > > PS. I will take care of the other comments for the next round. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
