On 2017-05-31 16:18, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 31-05-17 15:05, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2017-05-31 14:21, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> actually this is the first time I hear about a mux framework >>> at all. Is there a git tree with the patches for this somewhere ? >> >> https://gitlab.com/peda-linux/mux.git in the "mux" branch. >> >> Series posted here: >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/14/160 > > Thank you. > > I see that mux_control_get() currently relies on devicetree describing > the mux, that is not going to work on non devicetree platforms like > x86 where the relation typically is not described ad all (*) ?
Yes, I'm aware of this. I wanted to keep things simple. Also, see my reply on the other branch of this discussion. https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/31/58 > Typically there would be a global list of mux_controls maintained > by mux_[de]register and then mux_control_get() would walk this list > until it finds a matching name. The names to register would then be > passed in by platform data/code when registering and likewise the > consumer would be passed a unique name to pass into mux_control_get() > through platform data / code, would that work for you ? > > Note one option would be to set the names to use when registering > a mux chip through device_properties, this is what the power-supply > subsys is currently doing more or less. I had this lose plan to match by the struct device name, but if that is not working the above seems fine too... Cheers, peda
