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 -- 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
