On 2 January 2017 20:47:58 GMT+00:00, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 2017-01-02 19:05, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 02/01/17 16:01, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-01 12:00, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/16 08:17, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> Analog Devices ADG792A/G is a triple 4:1 mux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Few comments inline. Worth adding anything about the gpio (output
>pins) to
>>>> the binding at this stage as well? Would certainly be nice to
>support
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> I'll add optional properties "gpio-controller;" and "#gpio-cells =
><2>;"
>>> with the usual interpretation in v7 (but no implementation...) Is
>that
>>> enough?
>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>> ---
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-adg792a.txt | 64
>++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
>>>>> create mode 100644
>Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-adg792a.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-adg792a.txt
>b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-adg792a.txt
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..4677f9ab1c55
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/mux-adg792a.txt
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
>>>>> +Bindings for Analog Devices ADG792A/G Triple 4:1 Multiplexers
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Required properties:
>>>>> +- compatible : "adi,adg792a" or "adi,adg792g"
>>>>> +- #mux-control-cells : <0> if parallel, or <1> if not.
>>>>> +* Standard mux-controller bindings as decribed in
>mux-controller.txt
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Optional properties:
>>>>> +- adi,parallel : if present, the three muxes are bound together
>with a single
>>>>> + mux controller, controlling all three muxes in parallel.
>>>>> +- adi,idle-state : if present, array of states the three mux
>controllers will
>>>>> + have when idle (or, if parallel, a single idle-state).
>>>> Hmm. These are actually a policy decision. As only one policy will
>make
>>>> sense for a given set of hardware probably fine to have it in here
>I guess.
>>>> Might be worth adding a note to say this though.
>>>
>>> I don't really know what you want me to add, do you have a
>suggestion for the
>>> wording?
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Mux controller states 0 through 3 correspond to signals A through
>D in the
>>>>> +datasheet. Mux controller states 4 and 5 are only available as
>possible idle
>>>>> +states. State 4 represents that nothing is connected, and state 5
>represents
>>>>> +that the mux controller keeps the mux in its previously selected
>state during
>>>>> +the idle period. State 5 is the default idle state.
>>>> I'm never a great fan of magic numbers. Can we represent this more
>cleanly by
>>>> breaking it into multiple properties?
>>>> Optional:
>>>> adi,idle-switch-to-channel : switch to this channel when idle.
>>>> adi,idle-high-impedance : <boolean> the nothing connected state?
>>>>
>>>> If neither present leaves it in previous state?
>>>
>>> It's not that easy. adi,idle-state is an array when there are three
>single
>>> pole quadruple throw muxes, so there really needs to be a number for
>each
>>> desired idle-behavior. Unless you have a better idea for how to
>describe
>>> that?
>> The above with arrays for each of the two parameters?
>> Though then you need a priority documented - I'd say high impedance
>overrides
>> the channel selection if both are present.
>
>How would you specify that the first mux should idle in "state 5", the
>second
>should idle in "state 4" and the third in "state 0"? (original state
>numbering)
>
>You'd still need a magic number for the default idle state (state 5) so
>that
>you can skip entries in the arrays. Or am I missing something?
Ah I had missed state 5. Hmm would need explicit control for that as well. Not nice...
Perhaps 3 state control (magic number but with channel nums separate)
Idle-state array of <switchtostate, currentstate, highimpedance>
Idle-state array of states to switch to if so set?
Slight nicer than a mess of the two things perhaps?
>
>Cheers,
>peda
>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> peda
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Example:
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* three independent mux controllers (of which one is used) */
>>>>> + &i2c0 {
>>>>> + mux: adg792a@50 {
>>>>> + compatible = "adi,adg792a";
>>>>> + reg = <0x50>;
>>>>> + #mux-control-cells = <1>;
>>>>> + };
>>>>> + };
>>>>> +
>>>>> + adc-mux {
>>>>> + compatible = "iio-mux";
>>>>> + io-channels = <&adc 0>;
>>>>> + io-channel-names = "parent";
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mux-controls = <&mux 1>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + channels = "sync-1", "", "out";
>>>>> + };
>>>>> +
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Three parallel muxes with one mux controller, useful e.g. if
>>>>> + * the adc is differential, thus needing two signals to be muxed
>>>>> + * simultaneously for correct operation.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + &i2c0 {
>>>>> + pmux: adg792a@50 {
>>>>> + compatible = "adi,adg792a";
>>>>> + reg = <0x50>;
>>>>> + #mux-control-cells = <0>;
>>>>> + adi,parallel;
>>>>> + };
>>>>> + };
>>>>> +
>>>>> + diff-adc-mux {
>>>>> + compatible = "iio-mux";
>>>>> + io-channels = <&adc 0>;
>>>>> + io-channel-names = "parent";
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mux-controls = <&pmux>;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + channels = "sync-1", "", "out";
>>>>> + };
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
