On 2016-12-06 00:26, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:16:58AM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../bindings/iio/multiplexer/iio-mux.txt | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> MAINTAINERS | 6 ++++ >> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/multiplexer/iio-mux.txt > > I'm still not convinced about this binding, but don't really have more > comments ATM. Sending 6 versions in 2 weeks or so doesn't really help > either. Sorry about the noise, I'll try to be more careful going forward. On the flip side, I haven't touched the code since v6. I don't see how bindings that are as flexible as the current (and original) phandle link between the mux consumer and the mux controller would look, and at the same time be simpler to understand. You need to be able to refer to a mux controller from several mux consumers, and you need to support several mux controllers in one node (the ADG792A case). And, AFAICT, the complex case wasn't really the problem, it was that it is overly complex to describe the simple case of one mux consumer and one mux controller. But in your comment for v2 [1] you said that I was working around limitations with shared GPIO pins. But solving that in the GPIO subsystem would not solve all that the phandle approach is solving, since you would not have support for ADG792A (or other non-GPIO controlled muxes). So, I think listing the gpio pins inside the mux consumer node is a non-starter, the mux controller has to live in its own node with its own compatible. Would you be happier if I managed to marry the phandle approach with the option of having the mux controller as a child node of the mux consumer for the simple case? I added an example at the end of this message (the same as the first example in v4 [2], at least in principle) for easy comparison between the phandle and the controller-in-child-node approaches. I can't say that I personally find the difference all that significant, and do not think it is worth it. As I see it, the "simple option" would just muddy the waters... [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=147948334204795&w=2 [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148001364904240&w=2 >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/multiplexer/iio-mux.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/multiplexer/iio-mux.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..8080cf790d82 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/multiplexer/iio-mux.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ >> +IIO multiplexer bindings >> + >> +If a multiplexer is used to select which hardware signal is fed to >> +e.g. an ADC channel, these bindings describe that situation. >> + >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible : "iio-mux" > > This is a Linuxism. perhaps "adc-mux". No, that's not general enough, it could just as well be used to mux a temperature sensor. Or whatever. Hmmm, given that "iio-mux" is bad, perhaps "io-channel-mux" is better? That matches the io-channels property used to refer to the parent channel. >> +- io-channels : Channel node of the parent channel that has multiplexed >> + input. >> +- io-channel-names : Should be "parent". >> +- #address-cells = <1>; >> +- #size-cells = <0>; >> +- mux-controls : Mux controller node to use for operating the mux >> +- channels : List of strings, labeling the mux controller states. >> + >> +The multiplexer state as described in ../misc/mux-controller.txt >> + >> +For each non-empty string in the channels property, an iio channel will >> +be created. The number of this iio channel is the same as the index into >> +the list of strings in the channels property, and also matches the mux >> +controller state. >> + >> +Example: >> + mux: mux-controller { >> + compatible = "mux-gpio"; >> + #mux-control-cells = <0>; >> + >> + 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"; >> + >> + mux-controls = <&mux>; >> + >> + channels = "sync", "in", system-regulator"; >> + }; Describing the same as above, but with the mux controller as a child node. adc-mux { compatible = "iio-mux"; io-channels = <&adc 0>; io-channel-names = "parent"; channels = "sync", "in", system-regulator"; mux-controller { compatible = "mux-gpio"; mux-gpios = <&pioA 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>, <&pioA 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; }; }; 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
