On 2017-04-20 15:32, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-20 00:09, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 05:48:11PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>>> This adds device tree binding documentation for mmio-based syscon
>>> multiplexers controlled by a single bitfield in a syscon register
>>> range.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mmio-mux.txt | 56
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mmio-mux.txt
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mmio-mux.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mmio-mux.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000000000..11d96f5d98583
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mux/mmio-mux.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
>>> +MMIO bitfield-based multiplexer controller bindings
>>> +
>>> +Define a syscon bitfield to be used to control a multiplexer. The parent
>>> +device tree node must be a syscon node to provide register access.
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- compatible : "gpio-mux"
>>
>> ?
>>
>>> +- reg : register base of the register containing the control bitfield
>>> +- bit-mask : bitmask of the control bitfield in the control register
>>> +- bit-shift : bit offset of the control bitfield in the control register
>>> +- #mux-control-cells : <0>
>>> +* Standard mux-controller bindings as decribed in mux-controller.txt
>>> +
>>> +Optional properties:
>>> +- idle-state : if present, the state the mux will have when idle. The
>>> + special state MUX_IDLE_AS_IS is the default.
>>> +
>>> +The multiplexer state is defined as the value of the bitfield described
>>> +by the reg, bit-mask, and bit-shift properties, accessed through the parent
>>> +syscon.
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> + syscon {
>>> + compatible = "syscon";
>>> +
>>> + mux: mux-controller@3 {
>>> + compatible = "mmio-mux";
>>> + reg = <0x3>;
>>> + bit-mask = <0x1>;
>>> + bit-shift = <5>;
>>
>> This pattern doesn't scale once you have multiple fields @ addr 3. I
>> also don't really think a node per register field in DT really scales.
>>
>> I think the parent should be declared as a mux controller instead. You
>> could encode the mux addr and bit position in the mux cells.
>
> But then you need to create mux controllers on demand. I have not
> succeeded in doing that while also following the rules of the driver
> model. I had severe problems with life-time issues when I tried.
> I would like to see code before embarking on this path, and I'm
> apparently not the one writing it...
>
> So, either you meant that, or that the parent node should somehow
> specify the possible mux controllers up front so that they can be
> pre-created and ready when the consumers request them. But if you
> do that, you can just refer to them by some enumeration from the
> mux consumers instead of by some convoluted reg+field notation.
Ok, thinking some more about this. Sorry for spamming and replying to
self...
How about:
syscon {
compatible = "syscon", "simple-mfd";
mux: mux-controllers {
compatible = "mmio-mux";
#mux-control-cells = <1>;
/* three mux controllers, one at reg 3 bits 0:2,
* one at reg 3 bits 5:6 and one at reg 7 bit 3.
*/
mux-reg-masks = <0x3 0x07>, <0x3 0x60>, <0x7 0x08>;
idle-state = <7>, <MUX_IDLE_AS_IS>, <0>;
};
video-mux {
compatible = "video-mux";
mux-controls = <&mux 1>; /* i.e. reg 3 bits 5:6 */
ports {
/* ports 0..5 */
};
};
};
Optionally using some 64-bit safe 3-value encoding of the register fields
in the mux-reg-masks binding...
Cheers,
peda
