On 2017-04-18 12:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-18 10:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * devm_mux_chip_unregister() - Resource-managed version
>>> mux_chip_unregister().
>>> + * @dev: The device that originally regist
On 2017-04-20 23:53, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-18 23:53, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-04-18 13:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2017-04-18 10:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Pe
On 2017-04-21 16:41, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 16:32 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-04-21 16:23, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> [...]
+int mux_chip_register(struct mux_chip *mux_chip)
+{
+ int i;
+ in
On 2017-04-21 16:18, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> [...]
>> +int mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux, int state)
>
> state could be unsigned int for the consumer facing API.
>
>> +{
>> +int ret;
>
> And mux_control_select
On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 16:55 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-21 16:41, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 16:32 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> On 2017-04-21 16:23, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>> [...]
> +int mux_chip_reg
On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 16:32 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-21 16:23, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > [...]
> >> +int mux_chip_register(struct mux_chip *mux_chip)
> >> +{
> >> + int i;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < mux_chi
On 2017-04-21 16:23, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> [...]
>> +int mux_chip_register(struct mux_chip *mux_chip)
>> +{
>> +int i;
>> +int ret;
>> +
>> +for (i = 0; i < mux_chip->controllers; ++i) {
>> +struct mux_control *mux = &
On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
[...]
> +int mux_chip_register(struct mux_chip *mux_chip)
> +{
> + int i;
> + int ret;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < mux_chip->controllers; ++i) {
> + struct mux_control *mux = &mux_chip->mux[i];
> +
> + if (mux->id
Hi Peter,
On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
[...]
> +int mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux, int state)
state could be unsigned int for the consumer facing API.
> +{
> + int ret;
And mux_control_select should check that (0 <= state < mux->states).
regards
Philip
On 2017-04-18 23:53, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-18 13:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2017-04-18 10:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
*snip*
> + if (mux->idl
On 2017-04-19 15:49, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 14:00 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> [...]
+int mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux, int state)
>>>
>>> If we let two of these race, ...
>>
>> The window for this "race" is positively huge. If there are several
>> mux consum
On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 14:00 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
[...]
> >> +int mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux, int state)
> >
> > If we let two of these race, ...
>
> The window for this "race" is positively huge. If there are several
> mux consumers of a single mux controller, it is self-evide
On 2017-04-19 11:06, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Add a new minimalistic subsystem that handles multiplexer controllers.
>> When multiplexers are used in various places in the kernel, and the
>> same multiplexer controller can be used for several i
On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Add a new minimalistic subsystem that handles multiplexer controllers.
> When multiplexers are used in various places in the kernel, and the
> same multiplexer controller can be used for several independent things,
> there should be one place
On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 23:53 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-18 13:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
[]
> > > > > + ret = device_add(&mux_chip->dev);
> > > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > > + dev_err(&mux_chip->dev,
>
On 2017-04-18 13:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-04-18 10:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
+config MUX_GPIO
+ tristate "GPIO-controlled Multiplexer"
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-04-18 10:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> +config MUX_GPIO
> >> + tristate "GPIO-controlled Multiplexer"
> >> + depends on OF && GPIOLIB
> >
> > Why have the
On 2017-04-18 10:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> +config MUX_GPIO
>> +tristate "GPIO-controlled Multiplexer"
>> +depends on OF && GPIOLIB
>
> Why have the gpio and mux core in the same patch?
One is not usable w/o the other.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> +config MUX_GPIO
> + tristate "GPIO-controlled Multiplexer"
> + depends on OF && GPIOLIB
Why have the gpio and mux core in the same patch?
And why does this depend on OF?
> + help
> + GPIO-controlled Multiplexer co
Hi Peter,
On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/mux.h b/include/linux/mux.h
> new file mode 100644
> index ..febdde4246df
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/mux.h
[...]
Consider separating mux.h into a consumer header and a driver
20 matches
Mail list logo
