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

["Vankar, Chintan" <c-vankar@ti.com>]

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.

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


Regards,
Chintan.

> Rob