From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com (lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7105525C71D; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 21:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.234 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741211028; cv=none; b=Bs4/YUo2SHxGP4Tct4yThFIK0+s1+eQd4Ev7y5TURlki600rBW0BoZ6MhWj38/EvMA5Kd3GMVN+lqeJy+io3k79NsehAW1PlONcepNr5P9LlthbrRrJihG9BrAZUOzUml+bga31L9R1Ma/VYja3GswdC/5agjAfSIibBnM6TwbQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741211028; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Kiw7vrhGC9Tr20MBqv3aGeVldfht4lH/YDUtMVAiVnQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=HhELV8ojoBlh7c1FisvEPfWG9cDnjGIbCjtFbh9WF15p0Kp8YQEg1g4om2s89cZeAEJ0HvBpaEBzwSCGDoCeBpvn1LH9dFQfVBQdGSw6+tJq8gcsuWMUfwoGbFTN6l043S5ssXrDHwx+8Lwylg0+Jvgx1tJ8PZ7W9UZ+r19aeoM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=axxSTK6e; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.234 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="axxSTK6e" Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelvem-ot01.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 525Lhcoo3520081 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:43:38 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1741211019; bh=5gKsqhkj3z4aOY8JR1GfRGtUkvMlV0bDAct/H2T8opg=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=axxSTK6ey9ptT04JWhEn+Rz2RMp8JtYQZeIgOxT1wgDIilACd55C9ZNn8VyrVENq5 9IIBnJHB1lQrJfh3dKGFrK0tdWkrjwiiQmnD8XaFBlZye5FFhKZjb4PCkYLdxPOIv1 NdeLkqdaTwJPbYsJTjnOZ2PiQVxhXTXmj+EETXSA= Received: from DFLE103.ent.ti.com (dfle103.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.24]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 525Lhcnr004323; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:43:38 -0600 Received: from DFLE102.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.23) by DFLE103.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:43:38 -0600 Received: from lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.249) by DFLE102.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:43:38 -0600 Received: from [10.249.135.49] ([10.249.135.49]) by lelvsmtp6.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 525LhXF5093926; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:43:34 -0600 Message-ID: <11982b12-a359-467a-a6fc-e39adccca413@ti.com> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 03:13:33 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] devicetree: bindings: mux: reg-mux: Update bindings for reg-mux for new property To: Rob Herring CC: Conor Dooley , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Peter Rosin , , , , , Vignesh Raghavendra , Nishanth Menon References: <20250304102306.2977836-1-c-vankar@ti.com> <20250304102306.2977836-2-c-vankar@ti.com> <20250304153959.GA2654372-robh@kernel.org> <66283781-69d6-4d0a-ada4-3a6bf4744a37@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US From: "Vankar, Chintan" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-C2ProcessedOrg: 333ef613-75bf-4e12-a4b1-8e3623f5dcea Hello Rob, On 3/5/2025 2:10 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 1:03 PM Vankar, Chintan 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. > Can you please review the following binding: oneOf: - required: [ mux-reg-masks ] - required: [ mux-reg-masks-state ] allOf: - if: required: - mux-reg-masks-state then: properties: idle-states: false required: - compatible - '#mux-control-cells' I think it won't disturb the current bindings and keep backward compatibility with existing implementation. Regards, Chintan. > Rob