On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Allow specifying that a single multiplexer controller can be used to
> control several parallel multiplexers, thus enabling sharing of the
> multiplexer controller by different consumers.
>
> Add a binding for a first mux controller in the form of a GPIO based mux
> controller.
>
> Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.txt | 69 +++++++++
> .../devicetree/bindings/mux/mux-controller.txt | 157 +++++++++++++++++++++
> MAINTAINERS | 6 +
> include/dt-bindings/mux/mux.h | 16 +++
> 4 files changed, 248 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.txt
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mux-controller.txt
> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/mux/mux.h
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b8f746344d80
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/gpio-mux.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
> +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.
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible : "gpio-mux"
> +- mux-gpios : list of gpios used to control the multiplexer, least
> + significant bit first.
> +- #mux-control-cells : <0>
> +* Standard mux-controller bindings as decribed in mux-controller.txt
> +
> +Optional properties:
> +- idle-state : if present, the state the mux will have when idle. The
> + special state MUX_IDLE_AS_IS is the default.
> +
> +The multiplexer state is defined as the number represented by the
> +multiplexer GPIO pins, where the first pin is the least significant
> +bit. An active pin is a binary 1, an inactive pin is a binary 0.
> +
> +Example:
> +
> + mux: mux-controller {
> + compatible = "gpio-mux";
> + #mux-control-cells = <0>;
> +
> + mux-gpios = <&pioA 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>,
> + <&pioA 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
> + };
> +
> + adc-mux {
> + compatible = "io-channel-mux";
> + io-channels = <&adc 0>;
> + io-channel-names = "parent";
> +
> + mux-controls = <&mux>;
> +
> + channels = "sync-1", "in", "out", "sync-2";
> + };
Could you explain in more detail the reasoning behind this split between
the mux controller and the actual mux?
For SoC internal video bus muxes that are controlled by a register
bitfield, it seems a bit strange to have to split them into two device
tree nodes.
Basically I'm trying to figure out whether a video mux (which has a mux
control plus OF-graph bindings to describe its ports and connections)
would fit into the same category as an adc-mux or i2c-mux, or whether it
would be better to handle them as a specialized form of mux-controller.
regards
Philipp
--
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
