Hi Conor, On 26/06/24 2:29 pm, Conor Dooley wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > ForwardedMessage.eml > > Subject: > Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] dt-bindings: gpio: convert Atmel GPIO to json-schema > From: > Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: > 26/06/24, 2:29 pm > > To: > Manikandan.M@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > CC: > linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx, brgl@xxxxxxxx, robh@xxxxxxxxxx, > krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx, conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx, Nicolas.Ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, > alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx, claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx, arnd@xxxxxxxx, > Durai.ManickamKR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 08:32:41AM +0000,Manikandan.M@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 25/06/24 10:04 pm, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] dt-bindings: gpio: convert Atmel GPIO to json-schema >>> From: Conor Dooley<conor@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:05:24AM +0530, Manikandan Muralidharan wrote: >>>> Convert the Atmel GPIO controller binding document to DT schema format >>>> using json-schema. >>>> The compatible string "microchip,sam9x7-gpio" is added as well. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Manikandan Muralidharan<manikandan.m@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> changes in v2: >>>> - Fix bot errors with 'make dt_binding_check', missed to add >>>> "atmel,at91rm9200-gpio" as separate compatible for devices that uses it >>>> - Remove label from example >>>> - Add default entry for #gpio-lines property >>>> - Add new compatible string details in commit message >>>> --- >>>> .../bindings/gpio/atmel,at91rm9200-gpio.yaml | 81 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio_atmel.txt | 31 ------- >>>> 2 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/atmel,at91rm9200-gpio.yaml >>>> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio_atmel.txt >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/atmel,at91rm9200-gpio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/atmel,at91rm9200-gpio.yaml >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 000000000000..3dd70933ed8e >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/atmel,at91rm9200-gpio.yaml >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>>> +%YAML 1.2 >>>> +--- >>>> +$id:http://devicetree.org/schemas/gpio/atmel,at91rm9200-gpio.yaml# >>>> +$schema:http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>> + >>>> +title: Microchip GPIO controller (PIO) >>>> + >>>> +maintainers: >>>> + - Manikandan Muralidharan<manikandan.m@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> + >>>> +properties: >>>> + compatible: >>>> + oneOf: >>>> + - items: >>>> + - enum: >>>> + - atmel,at91sam9x5-gpio >>>> + - microchip,sam9x60-gpio >>>> + - const: atmel,at91rm9200-gpio >>>> + - items: >>>> + - enum: >>>> + - microchip,sam9x7-gpio >>>> + - const: microchip,sam9x60-gpio >>>> + - const: atmel,at91rm9200-gpio >>> It's worth pointing out that this is required, because the driver >>> implements a different set of ops for the sam9x60. There's not just more >>> of them, they're different too. >>> Are the sam9x60 and at91rm9200 are actually compatible, or is the >>> fallback here some mistake that originated in the dts? >>> >> The PIO3 pinctrl driver uses the compatible "atmel,at91rm9200-gpio" to >> find the number of active GPIO banks and also to differentiate them from >> the pinmux child nodes.The driver probe fails if the at91rm9200 is not >> present in the GPIO bank compatible property list. >> For sam9x7, "microchip,sam9x60-gpio" is used as the fallback compatible >> and "atmel,at91rm9200-gpio" is added by default to avoid probe issues >> and help find the number of GPIO banks by the driver. > That's unfortunately not what I asked. Forget about > at91_pinctrl_child_count() for a minute and answer the question again: > Are the sam9x60 and at91rm9200 actually compatible? > > Hints: > - Do the registers that are in the at91rm9200 have the same behaviour in > the sam9x60? The registers in at91rm9200 have the same behavior as sam9x60 expect that the former supports only 2 Peripheral function per pin while sam9x60 supports 4. > - Are the new registers in sam9x60 optional, so that if all sam9x60 code > was deleted from the driver, the driver would still work for the subset > of features that the at91rm9200 already supports? at91rm9200 function will work for sam9x60 but not up-to its full potential.The new registers in sam9x60 for drive-strength, slew-rate, debounce, pull-down will help drive the the current pinmux configs for sam9x60/9x7 board DT. > > Thanks, > Conor. > -- Thanks and Regards, Manikandan M.
