Hi Linus, > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pinctrl: imx: support SCMI pinctrl protocol for > i.MX95 > > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 8:17 AM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > +static int pinctrl_scmi_imx_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, > > + struct device_node *np, > > + struct pinctrl_map **map, > > + unsigned int *num_maps) > (...) > > +static int pinctrl_scmi_imx_pinconf_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, > > + unsigned int pin, > > + unsigned long *configs, > > + unsigned int num_configs) > > The code in these functions look suspiciously similar to same code in pinctrl- > imx.c, I bet it is copy/pase/modify. I only took the imx_pinctrl_parse_pin_mmio as example to get parse the node and do the pinctrl_scmi_imx_dt_node_to_map here. Only the pieces: "be32_to_cpu(*list++); " For other parts, they are different. There is no MUX here, configs has vendor SCMI "IMX_SCMI_PIN_X", and more. > > Can you look a second time if it is possible to share code between the drivers? I thought about this. Just trying what did for i.MX8 SCU pinctrl API by adding IMX_USE_SCMI flag. But because that means more if else check in pinctrl-imx.c and scmi requires different configs layout, which makes pinctrl-imx.c looks messy. And scmi pinctrl requires a totally different probe function, not imx_pinctrl_probe. So I decided to write a new driver for i.MX95. > > It's not super much code, I'm mostly worried about bugs having to be fixed in > two places. I could switch back to my initial try to share pinctrl-imx.c, but I hope not. > > What is the opinion of the othe i.MX pinctrl maintainers? Aisheng, Fabio, Shawn, Jacky, any comments? Thanks, Peng. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij
