On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:28:12PM -0600, Li Yang wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:54 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 08:27:23AM +0000, Pankaj Bansal wrote: > > > This adds device tree binding documentation for generic register based > > > multiplexer controlled by a bitfields in a parent device's register range. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Notes: > > > V3: > > > - Added the patch in series with the driver patch > > > - Fixed the node value out of bitfield error > > > - removed the "parent register r/w functions" line > > > V2: > > > - Removed syscon reference from txt file > > > - Removed loading zeroes from hex numbers > > > - Fixed the depth of dts nodes > > > - fixed minor formatting errors > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.txt | 83 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 83 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.txt > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..8bea6129c113 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ > > > +Generic register bitfield-based multiplexer controller bindings > > > + > > > +Define register bitfields to be used to control multiplexers. The parent > > > +device tree node must be a device node to provide register r/w access. > > > > We generally avoid register bit level bindings like this... > > > > What happens when I need 8 or 16-bit accesses. Or some quirky encoding > > of the bits. Or non-contiguous bit fields... It's an endless extending > > of the binding to try to handle different cases. > > I think the intention here is to mimic the existing mmio-mux binding > (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mmio-mux.txt) so that the > existing mmio-mux driver can be extended to cover both MMIO and > non-MMIO register based muxes. The bit-width of the register access > will be taken care of by the regmap framework. It is probably true > that this can not cover all the register based mux device if they do > have quircky register layout, but I think it should be good enough to > cover majority of the cases. If there are devices that cannot be > covered by the generic binding and driver, they could create their own > bindings and drivers. Other than the somewhat misleading name, why not just reuse the existing binding? Worst case, just add another compatible to it and renane the file. That would have saved me reviewing the whole thing again... But really, you should just be able to use what is there and determine the type of access from the parent node (or I suppose regmap does that for you). Rob
