Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mux: Add new API to get mux_control ref by device name.

[Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan]

Hi Andy,


On 7/8/2017 2:26 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2017-07-08 00:03, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Currently this driver only provides a single API, mux_control_get() to
> > > get mux_control reference based on mux_name, and also this API has tight
> > > dependency on device tree node. For devices, that does not use device
> > > tree, it makes it difficult to use this API. This patch adds new
> > > API to access mux_control reference based on device name, chip index and
> > > controller index value.
> > I assume this is for the Intel USB Multiplexer that you sent a driver for
> > a month or so ago? If so, you still have not answered these questions:
> >
> >     Is any other consumer in the charts at all? Can this existing consumer
> >     ever make use of some other mux? If the answer to both those questions
> >     are 'no', then I do not see much point in involving the mux subsystem at
> >     all. The Broxton USB PHY driver could just as well write to the register
> >     all by itself, no?
> >
> > that I asked in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/31/58
> >
> > What is the point of that driver?
> Without Heikki's blessing, NAK for this activity.
I dropped the idea of Intel USB MUX driver after my last discussion with 
Hans. He is currently working on a solution for this issue. Once its 
merged, May be I can try improving it handle my use cases.

But I submitted these changes because it can be useful if any one wants 
to use MUX framework for non-dt case.
>