linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: nuvoton: Add pinctrl support for ma35d1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <420f9132-b277-4476-bd74-9cc4cd87456f@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:06:35 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Jacky Huang <ychuang570808@...il.com>, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        conor+dt@...nel.org, p.zabel@...gutronix.de, j.neuschaefer@....net
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        schung@...oton.com, Jacky Huang <ychuang3@...oton.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: nuvoton: Add pinctrl support for ma35d1

On 13/10/2023 08:52, Jacky Huang wrote:
>>> +
>>> +&pinctrl {
>>> +	uart0 {
>>> +		pinctrl_uart0: uart0grp {
>>> +			nuvoton,pins =
>>> +				<MA35_SYS_REG_GPE_H 24 1 &pcfg_default>,
>>> +				<MA35_SYS_REG_GPE_H 28 1 &pcfg_default>;
>> This does not look like generic pinctrl bindings. Looks
>> over-complicated. From where did you get it? Which recent bindings and
>> drivers where used as an example? Register addresses should be in the
>> driver. Bit offsets as well. "multi-pin-function-value" confuses me. All
>> this is not really suitable for DTS.
> 
> Okay, I will update the first and second items to 'pin bank' and 'pin 
> bank index,
> just as others have done, and leave the driver to handle the conversion into
> registers and offsets.

Instead use existing common properties, like "pins" and "groups" (or
pinmux).

> 
> The term "multi-pin-function-value" is used to specify the device function.
> I will use the name "device function" instead of "multi-pin-function-value.

Use existing common properties, like "function". Do not reinvent the
bindings.



Best regards,
Krzysztof