Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 12/12] mux: support simplified bindings for single-user gpio mux | From | Peter Rosin <> | Date | Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:24:18 +0100 |
| |
On 2017-01-22 14:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 18/01/17 15:57, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Allow bindings for a GPIO controlled mux to be specified in the >> mux consumer node. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> > Code is good as far as I am concerned. Only question is whether this
Hmmm, now that I think some more about it, the code supporting the simplified binding (patch 12/12) is a bit fishy in one respect.
A driver that calls mux_control_get and gets a mux_control that happens to be backed by an implicit mux chip (i.e. using the simplified binding) will not be able to reverse the resource allocation with less than a complete destruction of itself. Now, this is likely not a problem in most cases, but I bet it will creep up at the most inopportune time. And your remark that I'm the one that has to maintain this makes me dislike this concept...
I.e. mux_control_put *should* reverse mux_control_get, but this simply does not happen for the implicit mux chips, as implicit mux chips are not put away until the owning device is put away.
Every time I have tried to come up with a way to implement the simplified bindings I seem to hit one of these subtleties.
> is worth the hassle given the normal bindings don't give that high > a burden in complexity!
I am missing an ack from Rob though.
> I don't really care either way:)
But Rob seems to care, this series just has to find a way to get out of his too-much-churn-will-look-at-it-later list. I sadly don't know how to pull that trick...
Cheers, peda
| |