On 02/17/2015 11:52 AM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
I2C mux pinctrl driver currently determines the number of sub-busses by
counting available pinctrl-names. Unfortunately, this requires each
incarnation of the devicetree node with different available sub-busses
to be rewritten.
Can you be more explicit about the problem here? Why does anything need
to be re-written if a child node is disabled; presumably there's no need
for the child bus numbers to be contiguous. In other words, with the
example in the existing DT binding doc:
compatible = "i2c-mux-pinctrl";
pinctrl-names = "ddc", "pta", "idle";
pinctrl-0 = <&state_i2cmux_ddc>;
pinctrl-1 = <&state_i2cmux_pta>;
pinctrl-2 = <&state_i2cmux_idle>;
reg = <0>;
reg = <1>;
That would generate child busses 0 and 1. If I was to disable the i2c@0
node, then there would still be definitions for child busses 0 and 1 in
the DT, it's just that child bus 0 wouldn't actually exist at run-time.
I don't see what part of DT needs to be re-written to accomodate this?
This patch reworks i2c-mux-pinctrl driver to count the number of
available sub-nodes instead. The rework should be compatible to the old
way of probing for sub-busses and additionally allows to disable unused
sub-busses with standard DT property status = "disabled".
This also amends the corresponding devicetree binding documentation to
reflect the new functionality to disable unused sub-nodes. While at it,
also fix two references to binding documentation files that miss an
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mux-pinctrl.txt
-For each named state defined in the pinctrl-names property, an I2C
-will be created. I2C child bus numbers are assigned based on the
-the pinctrl-names property.
+For each child node that is not disabled by a status != "okay", an I2C
+child bus will be created. I2C child bus numbers are assigned based
+order of child nodes.
I would have assumed that disabled sub-nodes was a global concept within
DT, and so wouldn't be mentioned in the binding. It would just be a bug
in the driver if it didn't ignore disabled sub-nodes.
-The only exception is that no bus will be created for a state named
-such a state is defined, it must be the last entry in pinctrl-names. For
- pinctrl-names = "ddc", "pta", "idle" -> ddc = bus 0, pta = bus 1
- pinctrl-names = "ddc", "idle", "pta" -> Invalid ("idle" not last)
- pinctrl-names = "idle", "ddc", "pta" -> Invalid ("idle" not last)
+There must be a corresponding pinctrl-names entry for each enabled child
+node at the position of the child node's "reg" property.
The addition there seems fine, but the existing text re: the idle state
seems clearer in the original text.