Hi Krzysztof, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 17/11/2022 22:03, Bernhard Rosenkränzer wrote: >> Add devicetree bindings for Mediatek MT8365 pinctrl driver. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Rosenkränzer <bero@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve. > >> + >> + pins-are-numbered: >> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag >> + description: | >> + Specify the subnodes are using numbered pinmux to specify pins. > > Why would you name pins differently per board? And why this different > naming of the same pins is a property of hardware? > > This looks like something to drop. Yeah, having this as a flag kind of implies that this could be present for some boards but not others. But in practice, the driver requires it to be present or just fails[1]. What's the right way to describe that? We're just trying to add a binding that reflects the existing driver. We also noticed that there's another documented binding with this same flag[2] where similiarily, the driver simply requires it to be present[2]. So is the way this flag is documented in the stm32 binding OK for the mediatek one also? If not, what would you suggest? Thanks for the review, Kevin [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common.c#n1053 [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml#n37 [3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c#n1499
