Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] devicetree: bindings: mux: reg-mux: Update bindings for reg-mux for new property

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 1:03 PM Vankar, Chintan <c-vankar@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> On 3/4/2025 9:09 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 03:53:05PM +0530, Chintan Vankar wrote:
> >> DT-binding of reg-mux is defined in such a way that one need to provide
> >> register offset and mask in a "mux-reg-masks" property and corresponding
> >> register value in "idle-states" property. This constraint forces to define
> >> these values in such a way that "mux-reg-masks" and "idle-states" must be
> >> in sync with each other. This implementation would be more complex if
> >> specific register or set of registers need to be configured which has
> >> large memory space. Introduce a new property "mux-reg-masks-state" which
> >> allow to specify offset, mask and value as a tuple in a single property.
> >
> > Maybe in hindsight that would have been better, but having 2 ways to
> > specify the same thing that we have to maintain forever is not an
> > improvement.
> >
> > No one is making you use this binding. If you have a large number of
> > muxes, then maybe you should use a specific binding.
> >
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch. The reason behind choosing mux
> subsystem is working and implementation of mmio driver. As we can see
> that implementing this new property in mux-controller is almost
> identical to mmio driver, and it would make it easier to define and
> extend mux-controller's functionality. If we introduce the new driver
> than that would be most likely a clone of mmio driver.

I'm talking about the binding, not the driver. They are independent.
Generic drivers are great. I love them. Generic bindings, not so much.

> Let me know if implementation would be accepted by adding a new
> compatible for it.

Adding a new compatible to the mmio driver? Certainly. That happens
all the time.

I also didn't say don't use this binding as-is. That's fine too.

Rob