On 2016-11-24 16:18, Peter Rosin wrote:

v3 -> v4 changes
- added support for having the mux-controller in a child node of a
  mux-consumer if it is a sole consumer, to hopefully even further satisfy
  the complaint from Rob (and later Lars-Peter) about dt complexity.
- the above came at the cost of some rather horrible refcounting code,
  please review and suggest how it should be done...

v2 -> v3 changes
- have the mux-controller in the parent node of any mux-controller consumer,
  to hopefully satisfy complaint from Rob about dt complexity.

I did some further tests and both of these attempts to support fancier
devicetree bindings have severe problems. I will remove them for v5 and
go back to having a phandle reference to the mux-controller from the
consumer (unless I get some revelation of course and just get it). I'm
simply not yet understanding the driver model well enough to pull this
off at the moment...

Cheers,
Peter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html