linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support pinctrl protocol

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]

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:33:57 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
CC: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Pengutronix
 Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Oleksii
 Moisieiev <oleksii_moisieiev@...m.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>, dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support pinctrl
 protocol

> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support pinctrl
> protocol
> 
> On 23-12-20, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support
> > > pinctrl protocol
> > >
> > > Hi Peng,
> > >
> > > On 23-12-15, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > > >
> > > > Add SCMI v3.2 pinctrl protocol bindings and example.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml     | 99
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 99 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git
> > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > index 4591523b51a0..bfd2b6a89979 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
> > > > @@ -247,6 +247,85 @@ properties:
> > > >        reg:
> > > >          const: 0x18
> > > >
> > > > +  protocol@19:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > @@ -401,6 +480,26 @@ examples:
> > > >              scmi_powercap: protocol@18 {
> > > >                  reg = <0x18>;
> > > >              };
> > > > +
> > > > +            scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 {
> > > > +                reg = <0x19>;
> > > > +                #pinctrl-cells = <0>;
> > > > +
> > > > +                i2c2-pins {
> > > > +                    groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b";
> > > > +                    function = "i2c2";
> > > > +                };
> > > > +
> > > > +                mdio-pins {
> > > > +                    groups = "avb_mdio";
> > > > +                    drive-strength = <24>;
> > > > +                };
> > > > +
> > > > +                keys_pins: keys-pins {
> > > > +                    pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1";
> > > > +                    bias-pull-up;
> > > > +                };
> > > > +            };
> > >
> > > This example is different to the one you mentioned within the
> > > cover-letter. I didn't checked all patches just want to ask which
> > > API will be implemented by this patchset?
> >
> > I kept this change since it was tested by Oleksii, but anyway i.MX not use
> these.
> >
> > The API, I suppose you are asking about this?
> > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_pinctrl_ops = {
> >         .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count,
> >         .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name,
> >         .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins,
> > #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >         .dt_node_to_map = pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_all,
> >         .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map,
> > #endif
> > };
> >
> > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_imx_pinctrl_ops = {
> >         .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count,
> >         .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name,
> >         .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins,
> > #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >         .dt_node_to_map = pinctrl_scmi_imx_dt_node_to_map,
> >         .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map,
> > #endif
> > };
> 
> I see, thanks for the clarification. In short: the i.MX SMCI pinctrl DT-API is the
> same as the non-SCMI pinctrl API since the dt_node_to_map will convert it.

Yes, the fsl,pins format is same whether SCMI or non-SCMI. But we need
to pack the data to a format that matches the i.MX OEM SCMI PINCTRL
protocol, so we need to dedicated dt_node_to_map here.

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> Regards,
>   Marco