[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <76ce7d78-5870-41c5-9114-9d230caeb2d0@oss.nxp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 12:46:46 +0300
From: Larisa Ileana Grigore <larisa.grigore@....nxp.com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>,
Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@....com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
Fugang Duan <B38611@...escale.com>, Gao Pan <pandy.gao@....com>,
Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@....com>,
Ciprianmarian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@....com>, s32@....com,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] dt-bindings: lpspi: Document nxp,lpspi-pincfg
property
On 8/19/2025 12:52 PM, James Clark wrote:
>
>
> On 18/08/2025 4:39 pm, Frank Li wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 03:47:45PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/08/2025 7:19 pm, Frank Li wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 05:06:52PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
>>>>> Document the two valid pincfg values and the defaults.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the hardware supports two more values for half-duplex modes,
>>>>> the driver doesn't support them so don't document them.
>>>>
>>>> binding doc should be first patch before drivers.
>>>>
>>>> binding descript hardware not driver, you should add all regardless if
>>>> driver support it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Replied to same on "[PATCH 10/13] spi: spi-fsl-lpspi: Add compatible for
>>> S32G"
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-fsl-lpspi.yaml | 14 ++
>>>>> ++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-fsl-
>>>>> lpspi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-fsl-lpspi.yaml
>>>>> index ce7bd44ee17e..3f8833911807 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-fsl-lpspi.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-fsl-lpspi.yaml
>>>>> @@ -70,6 +70,19 @@ properties:
>>>>> power-domains:
>>>>> maxItems: 1
>>>>>
>>>>> + nxp,pincfg:
>>>>> + description:
>>>>> + 'Pin configuration value for CFGR1.PINCFG.
>>>>> + - "sin-in-sout-out": SIN is used for input data and SOUT
>>>>> is used for
>>>>> + output data
>>>>> + - "sout-in-sin-out": SOUT is used for input data and SIN
>>>>> is used for
>>>>> + output data
>>>>> + If no value is specified then the default is "sin-in-sout-
>>>>> out" for host
>>>>> + mode and "sout-in-sin-out" for target mode.'
>>>>
>>>> why need this? are there varible at difference boards? look like
>>>> default
>>>> is more make sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> + Larissa. I think this might also be a question for the hardware
>>> designers
>>> about why the feature to swap the pins was deemed worth including.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming the flexibility is given for routing reasons. If you have
>>> another device with the pins in one order then you can route it
>>> without a
>>> via if they happen to be in the same order.
>>
>> DT team need reason to judge if a new property is reasonable/
>> neccesary. You
>> need mention the reason why need this property. Here, some board design
>> swap sin/sout.
>>
>
> Let's wait for Larisa to reply. If there's no board and it was only for
> testing maybe we can drop it.
>
Hello James,
There was no board. You can drop it.
Regards,
Larisa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists