Re: [PATCH v8 12/12] mux: support simplified bindings for single-user gpio mux
From: Rob Herring
Date: Fri Jan 27 2017 - 12:36:25 EST
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:24:18AM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-01-22 14:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On 18/01/17 15:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> Allow bindings for a GPIO controlled mux to be specified in the
> >> mux consumer node.
> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Code is good as far as I am concerned. Only question is whether this
> Hmmm, now that I think some more about it, the code supporting the
> simplified binding (patch 12/12) is a bit fishy in one respect.
> A driver that calls mux_control_get and gets a mux_control that happens
> to be backed by an implicit mux chip (i.e. using the simplified binding)
> will not be able to reverse the resource allocation with less than a
> complete destruction of itself. Now, this is likely not a problem in
> most cases, but I bet it will creep up at the most inopportune time. And
> your remark that I'm the one that has to maintain this makes me dislike
> this concept...
> I.e. mux_control_put *should* reverse mux_control_get, but this simply
> does not happen for the implicit mux chips, as implicit mux chips are
> not put away until the owning device is put away.
I think this is because you aren't creating a device in this case. Nodes
in DT are not the only way to create devices. Drivers can create a child
device when they find mux-gpios property.
> Every time I have tried to come up with a way to implement the simplified
> bindings I seem to hit one of these subtleties.
> > is worth the hassle given the normal bindings don't give that high
> > a burden in complexity!
I was going to change my mind here, but we already have "mux-gpios" as a
binding at least for i2c-gpio-mux. So really the question is do we want
to support that here?
> I am missing an ack from Rob though.
> > I don't really care either way:)
> But Rob seems to care, this series just has to find a way to get out of
> his too-much-churn-will-look-at-it-later list. I sadly don't know how to
> pull that trick...
By complaining that I'm putting it off... :) I guess I'm okay with this
series in general. I will reply on the specific patches today.