> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMI v3.2 pincontrol > protocol basic support > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 1:37 PM Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > And for i.MX95 OEM extenstion, do you have any suggestions? > > I have two points: > > 1. use vendor compatible. This would also benefit when supporting > > vendor protocol. > > 2. Introduce a property saying supporting-generic-pinconf > > > > How do you think? > > While I don't know how OEM extensions to SCMI were designed, the pin > control subsystem has the philosophy that extensions are for minor fringe > stuff, such as a pin config option that no other silicon is using and thus have > no use for anyone else. Well that is actually all the custom extensions we > have. > (This notion is even carried over to SCMI pinctrl.) > > The i.MX95 OEM extension is really odd to me, it looks like a > reimplementation of the core aspects of SCMI pin control, and looks much > more like the old i.MX drivers than like the SCMI driver. i.MX SCMI pin protocol conf settings follows non-SCMI pin conf settings. > > But I sure cannot speak of what is allowed in SCMI OEM extensions or not. + SPEC owner, Souvik. Any comments? Thanks, Peng. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij
