On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 3:23 PM Souvik Chakravarty
<souvik.chakravarty@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 13/11/2023 13:32, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > Hi Souvik,
> >
> > thanks for looking into this!
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 1:56 PM Souvik Chakravarty
> > <souvik.chakravarty@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> The initial assumption always was that GPIOs can be considered as a
> >> specific function. Note that the spec does not define the types of
> >> function and leaves it to the DT binding (or driver) to figure out the
> >> function descriptions/names.
> >
> > Does this mean that each system using pinctrl-SCMI will need
> > to specify the available pins, groups and functions in a device tree
> > binding? For e.g. DT validation using schema?
>
> Sorry seems I made a typo above ("descriptions/names" should have been
> "description from names") which resulted in turning things on its head.
>
> I really meant that the driver has to figure out the exact type or
> meaning of what the function does from its name. SCMI still continues to
> provide the list of pins/groups/functions and their names.
Indeed, that's what I imagined.
I think the rest of my question spurred by the phrase
"leaves it to the DT binding (or driver) to figure out" is actually
something Oleksii needs to look into more than a question to you.
It should probably come as a review comment to the patch 5/5 itself.
Oleksii, what is your take on my question about DT schema validation
for different SoCs?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
