On 2017-01-22 14:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 18/01/17 15:57, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Allow bindings for a GPIO controlled mux to be specified in the >> mux consumer node. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> > Code is good as far as I am concerned. Only question is whether this Hmmm, now that I think some more about it, the code supporting the simplified binding (patch 12/12) is a bit fishy in one respect. A driver that calls mux_control_get and gets a mux_control that happens to be backed by an implicit mux chip (i.e. using the simplified binding) will not be able to reverse the resource allocation with less than a complete destruction of itself. Now, this is likely not a problem in most cases, but I bet it will creep up at the most inopportune time. And your remark that I'm the one that has to maintain this makes me dislike this concept... I.e. mux_control_put *should* reverse mux_control_get, but this simply does not happen for the implicit mux chips, as implicit mux chips are not put away until the owning device is put away. Every time I have tried to come up with a way to implement the simplified bindings I seem to hit one of these subtleties. > is worth the hassle given the normal bindings don't give that high > a burden in complexity! I am missing an ack from Rob though. > I don't really care either way:) But Rob seems to care, this series just has to find a way to get out of his too-much-churn-will-look-at-it-later list. I sadly don't know how to pull that trick... Cheers, peda -- 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
