Hi Krzysztof,
Thanks for your clarifications
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 13:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> + '^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@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@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@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@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
