On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 03:26:31PM -0600, Andrew Davis wrote:
> 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?
Aye.
> > + 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.
From the example schema:
# if/then schema can be used to handle conditions on a property affecting
# another property. A typical case is a specific 'compatible' value changes the
# constraints on other properties.
#
# For multiple 'if' schema, group them under an 'allOf'.
#
# If the conditionals become too unweldy, then it may be better to just split
# the binding into separate schema documents.
allOf:
- if:
properties:
compatible:
contains:
const: vendor,soc2-ip
then:
required:
- foo-supply
else:
# If otherwise the property is not allowed:
properties:
foo-supply: false
What's missing from here is making one of the properties required,
so
oneOf:
- required:
- masks
- required:
- masks-state
>
> Andrew
>
> > + maxItems: 1
> > required:
> > - compatible
> > - - mux-reg-masks
> > - '#mux-control-cells'
> > additionalProperties: false
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
