On 03/10/2023 02:41, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:41:55AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:16:02AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> A dt binding for SCMI pinctrl based gpio driver is defined in this >>> commit. It basically conforms to generic pinctrl-gpio mapping framework. >> >> What is "generic pinctrl-gpio mapping framework"? DT doesn't have >> frameworks. > > I meant to refer to section 2.1-2.3 in "Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt". The semantics is implemented in drivers/gpio/gpiolib(-of).c. Linux specific GPIO library is as well outside of DT scope. Please focus here on hardware, not Linux specifics. > >>> >>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/gpio/arm,scmi-gpio.yaml | 71 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/arm,scmi-gpio.yaml >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/arm,scmi-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/arm,scmi-gpio.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..2601c5594567 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/arm,scmi-gpio.yaml >>> @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause >>> +%YAML 1.2 >>> +--- >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/gpio/arm,scmi-gpio.yaml# >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>> + >>> +title: SCMI pinctrl based generic GPIO controller >>> + >>> +maintainers: >>> + - AKASHI Takahiro <akashi.takahiro@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + $nodename: >>> + pattern: "^scmi_gpio(@[0-9a-f]+)$" >> >> Not the correct name. > > How not? Underscores are no allowed and are pointed by dtc (W=2). scmi is redundant here, because names should be generic. Anyway, we do not add node name requirements to device schema. > >>> + >>> + compatible: >>> + const: arm,scmi-gpio-generic >> >> What makes it generic? No such thing. Just drop '-generic'. > > I will discuss this issue in following Cristian's comment. > >> >>> + >>> + gpio-controller: true >>> + >>> + "#gpio-cells": >>> + const: 2 >>> + >>> + gpio-ranges: true >>> + >>> + gpio-ranges-group-names: true >>> + >>> +patternProperties: >>> + "^.+-hog(-[0-9]+)?$": >>> + type: object >>> + properties: >>> + gpio-hog: true >>> + gpios: true >>> + input: true >>> + output-high: true >>> + output-low: true >>> + line-name: true >>> + >>> + required: >>> + - gpio-hog >>> + - gpios >> >> You don't need all this just 'required: [ gpio-hog ]'. Then the hog >> schema will check the rest. > > Okay. > >>> + >>> + additionalProperties: false >>> + >>> +required: >>> + - compatible >>> + - gpio-controller >>> + - "#gpio-cells" >>> + - gpio-ranges >>> + >>> +additionalProperties: false >>> + >>> +examples: >>> + - | >>> + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h> >>> + >>> + scmi_gpio_0: scmi_gpio@0 { >> >> gpio { >> >> But doesn't SCMI have protocol numbers? >> >>> + compatible = "arm,scmi-gpio"; >>> + gpio-controller; >>> + #gpio-cells = <2>; >>> + gpio-ranges = <&scmi_pinctrl 0 10 5>, >>> + <&scmi_pinctrl 5 0 0>; >>> + gpio-ranges-group-names = "", >>> + "pinmux_gpio"; >>> + }; >>> + >>> + // Consumer: >> >> Outside the scope of this binding. Drop this node. > > Even though it's in an example? > "#gpio-cells" has a meaning in consumer side. Just look at any other bindings. Best regards, Krzysztof
