[PATCH v6 1/2] dt-binding: pinctrl: Add NPCM8XX pinctrl and GPIO documentation

[Tomer Maimon]

Hi Krzysztof,

Thanks for your clarifications

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 13:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 28/08/2023 12:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 28/08/2023 12:26, Tomer Maimon wrote:
> >> Hi Krzysztof,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your comments
> >>
> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 10:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> >> <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 27/08/2023 22:36, Tomer Maimon wrote:
> >>>> Added device tree binding documentation for Nuvoton Arbel BMC NPCM8XX
> >>>> pinmux and GPIO controller.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77 at gmail.com>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> +  '^pin':
> >>>> +    $ref: pincfg-node.yaml#
> >>>> +
> >>>> +    properties:
> >>>> +      pins:
> >>>> +        description:
> >>>> +          A list of pins to configure in certain ways, such as enabling
> >>>> +          debouncing
> >>>
> >>> What pin names are allowed?
> >> Do you mean to describe all the allowed pin items?
> >> for example:
> >>       items:
> >>         pattern:
> >> 'GPIO0/IOX1_DI/SMB6C_SDA/SMB18_SDA|GPIO1/IOX1_LD/SMB6C_SCL/SMB18_SCL'
> >> or
> >>       items:
> >>         pattern: '^GPIO([0-9]|[0-9][0-9]|[1-2][0-4][0-9]|25[0-6])$'
> >>
> >> is good enough?
> >
> > Something like this. Whichever is correct.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +      bias-disable: true
> >>>> +
> >
> >>>> +additionalProperties: false
> >>>> +
> >>>> +examples:
> >>>> +  - |
> >>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> >>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +    soc {
> >>>> +      #address-cells = <2>;
> >>>> +      #size-cells = <2>;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +      pinctrl: pinctrl at f0800260 {
> >>>
> >>> Nothing improved here. Test your DTS. This is being reported - I checked.
> >> what do you suggest since the pinctrl doesn't have a reg parameter,
> >> maybe pinctrl: pinctrl at 0?
> >
> > It has ranges, so yes @0 looks correct here.
>
> Wait, your address according to ranges is 0xf0010000, not 0x0, not
> 0xf0800260...
I will modify it to pinctrl: pinctrl at f0010000
>
>
> > Which leds to second
> > question - how pinctrl could have @0? It's already taken by SoC! So your
> > DTS here - unit address and ranges - are clearly wrong.
> >
> >
> >> BTW, I have run both dt_binding_check and W=1 dtbs_check, and didn't
> >> see an issue related to the pinctrl: pinctrl at f0800260, do I need to
> >> add another flag to see the issue?
> >
> > Did you read my message last time? I said - it's about DTS, not the binding.
yes, understood doesn't the dtbs_check check the DTS?
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

Best regards,

Tomer