On 04/23/2012 05:15 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:49:04PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> * Define core portions of the DT binding for I2C bus muxes. >> * Enhance i2c_add_mux_adapter(): >> ** Add parameters required for DT support. Update all callers. >> ** Set the appropriate adap->dev.of_node for the child bus. >> ** Call of_i2c_register_devices() for the child bus. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> > > David Daney (CCed) posted another variant [1]. Just looking at the > patches (and not really using them), I tend to like the approach using > <reg> better. But I am open for discussion, so I'd appreciate your > feedback. > > Regards, > > Wolfram > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/12/423 Ah, that does look like a reasonable binding. I had meant to call out to reviewers the potentially unusual use of explicitly named sub-nodes, rather than using the usual reg-based matching. The main reason I chose named sub-nodes for the busses was so the sub-nodes would match the pinctrl named states. However, I think we can make the pinctrl numbering match rather than the pinctrl naming instead. The only issue is the "idle" state; if we allow it to exist anywhere in the pinctrl-names list, it'll make the pinctrl numbering mismatch the sub-node numbering. I think we can solve this by forcing the idle state to be listed last in pinctrl-names (if it's listed at all). I'll update my patches based on that David's patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
