[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD++jLntu4LY=VHOMSXeLKXOBD9MTNziv47B0qkDjxUa1xAsng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 19:07:45 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linusw@...nel.org>
To: Ye Zhang <ye.zhang@...k-chips.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tao.huang@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] dt-bindings: pinctrl: rockchip: Add RMIO
controller binding
Hi Ye,
thanks for your patch!
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 3:50 PM Ye Zhang <ye.zhang@...k-chips.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,rmio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,rmio.yaml
> + rockchip,rmio-grf:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
> + description:
> + The phandle of the syscon node (GRF or PMU) containing the RMIO registers.
> + This property is required if the RMIO registers are located in a different
> + syscon than the parent pinctrl node.
> +
> + rockchip,offset:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> + description:
> + The offset of the RMIO configuration registers within the GRF.
Can't this just be a cell in the phandle?
> + rockchip,pins-num:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> + description:
> + The number of physical pins supported by this RMIO instance.
> + Used for boundary checking and driver initialization.
Isn't this implicit from the compatible? Why is this different
between two device trees using the same compatible pin
controller? I don't get it, I think this should be a constant in the
code based on the compatible instead.
> +patternProperties:
> + "^[a-z0-9-]+$":
> + type: object
> + description:
> + Function node grouping multiple groups.
> +
> + patternProperties:
> + "^[a-z0-9-]+$":
> + type: object
> + description:
> + Group node containing the pinmux configuration.
> +
> + properties:
> + rockchip,rmio:
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix
> + description:
> + A list of pin-function pairs. The format is <pin_id function_id>.
> + minItems: 1
> + items:
> + items:
> + - description: RMIO Pin ID (0 to pins-num - 1)
> + minimum: 0
> + maximum: 31
> + - description: Function ID
> + minimum: 0
> + maximum: 98
Please avoid these custom properties and just use the standard
"pinmux" property. I don't want any more opaque custom bindings
for functions and groups.
Reference Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/pinmux-node.yaml
and use pinmux from there.
You can use some shifting and defines to shoehorn your config
into a single u32 and parse that in your driver; i.e. instead of
rockchip,rmio = <1, 2>;
use
pinmux = <1 << 8 | 2 << 0>;
these shifter numerals can come from defines.
In the driver shift & mask out the components you want.
e.g.;
> + rmio-uart {
> + rmio_pin27_uart1_tx: rmio-pin27-uart1-tx {
> + rockchip,rmio = <27 RMIO_UART1_TX>;
pinmux = <27 << 8 | RMIO_UART1_TX>;
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/rockchip,rk3506-rmio.h
These number dumps are not appreciated inside the bindings
despite quite a few found their way in there.
Use something like
arch/*/dts/rockchip/rk3506-rmio-pins.dtsi
and include that into your device trees instead.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists