On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 09:49:33AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 3:23???PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 11:58:43AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> > > A dt binding for pin controller based generic gpio driver is defined in
> > > this commit. One usable device is Arm's SCMI.
> >
> > You don't need a "generic" binding to have a generic driver. Keep the
> > binding specific and then decide in the OS to whether to use a generic
> > or specific driver. That decision could change over time, but the
> > binding can't. For example, see simple-panel.
>
> What you say is true for simple-panel (a word like "simple" should
> always cause red flags).
>
> This case is more like mfd/syscon.yaml, where the singular
> compatible = "syscon"; is in widespread use:
>
> $ git grep 'compatible = \"syscon\";' |wc -l
> 50
>
> I would accept adding a tuple compatible if you insist, so:
>
> compatible = "foo-silicon", "pin-contro-gpio";
>
> One case will be something like:
>
> compatible = "optee-scmi-pin-control", "pin-control-gpio";
>
> In this case I happen to know that we have the problem of
> this being standardization work ahead of implementation on
> actual hardware, and that is driven by the will known firmware
> ambition to be completely abstract. It is supposed to sit on
> top of pin control, or as part of pin control. Which leads me to
> this thing (which I didn't think of before...)
>
> > + gpio0: gpio@0 {
> > + compatible = "pin-control-gpio";
> > + gpio-controller;
> > + #gpio-cells = <2>;
> > + gpio-ranges = <&scmi_pinctrl 0 10 5>,
> > + <&scmi_pinctrl 5 0 0>;
> > + gpio-ranges-group-names = "",
> > + "pinmux_gpio";
> > + };
>
> Maybe we should require that the pin-control-gpio node actually
> be *inside* the pin control node, in this case whatever the label
> &scmi_pinctrl is pointing to?
null (or '_' as dummy) if the dt schema allows such a value as
a trivial case?
> We can probably mandate that this has to be inside a pin controller
> since it is a first.
Yeah, my U-Boot implementation tentatively supports both (inside and
outside pin controller). But it is not a user's choice, but we should
decide which way to go.
Thanks,
-Takahiro Akashi
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
