Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] devicetree: bindings: mux: reg-mux: Update bindings for reg-mux for new property

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/27/25 2:22 PM, Chintan Vankar wrote:
DT-binding of reg-mux is defined in such a way that one need to provide
register offset and mask in a "mux-reg-masks" property and corresponding
register value in "idle-states" property. This constraint forces to define
these values in such a way that "mux-reg-masks" and "idle-states" must be
in sync with each other. This implementation would be more complex if
specific register or set of registers need to be configured which has
large memory space. Introduce a new property "mux-reg-masks-state" which
allow to specify offset, mask and value as a tuple in a single property.

Signed-off-by: Chintan Vankar <c-vankar@xxxxxx>
---
  .../devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.yaml      | 29 +++++++++++++++++--
  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.yaml
index dc4be092fc2f..a73c5efcf860 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/reg-mux.yaml
@@ -32,11 +32,36 @@ properties:
          - description: pre-shifted bitfield mask
      description: Each entry pair describes a single mux control.
- idle-states: true
+  idle-states:
+    description: Each entry describes mux register state.
+
+  mux-reg-masks-state:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix
+    items:
+      items:
+        - description: register offset
+        - description: pre-shifted bitfield mask
+        - description: register value to be set
+    description: This property is an extension of mux-reg-masks which
+                 allows specifying register offset, mask and register
+                 value to be set in a single property.
+
+allOf:
+  - if:
+      properties:
+        compatible:
+          contains:
+            enum:
+              - reg-mux
+              - mmio-mux

These are the only two possible compatibles, is this "if" check needed?

+    then:
+      properties:
+        mux-reg-masks: true
+        mux-reg-masks-state: true

You need one, but cannot have both, right? There should be some
way to describe that.

Also an example added below would be good.

Andrew

+      maxItems: 1
required:
    - compatible
-  - mux-reg-masks
    - '#mux-control-cells'
additionalProperties: false




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux