linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/5] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add pic64gx "gpio2" pinmux

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: <CACRpkdYi_n0VcN78eTCty+rVvTnSPFa-pRGOw1LFziBd_2vwBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 12:56:42 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add pic64gx "gpio2" pinmux

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 5:47 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:

> tbh, I found it hard to understand the "line" between using a pinmux
> property and where stuff should be described in groups or functions in a
> driver. What is that line?

There is no such line, basically what I like as pin control maintainer
is what exists in the documentation with groups and functions.

Then various driver maintainers have pushed me around since
day 1 because they think it is much more convenient to just
have some single value to poke into a register.

I have come to accept both because the discussions just
go on forever. I'm not a very stern person, "those are my
principles, if you don't like them, I have others".

Essentially it is a question about what the device tree is for:
is it just for (outline) description and configuration of hardware
for a specific system, i.e. where everything that is not
system-specific should be encoded into the driver, or is it
for dumping all kind of various SoC-specific stuff into, without
abstraction. There is no clear line there either, and that is
part of the problem here.

Yours,
Linus Walleij