Hi Krzysztof, On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 11:23:12AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 19/07/2024 22:39, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + interrupts: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + vdd-supply: true > > + > > + gpio-controller: true > > + > > + '#gpio-cells': > > + const: 2 > > + > > + gpio-reserved-ranges: true > > + > > + "#pwm-cells": > > + const: 3 > > + > > +required: > > + - compatible > > + - reg > > + - gpio-controller > > + - "#gpio-cells" > > + - "#pwm-cells" > > + > > +allOf: > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + const: adi,adp5585-01 > > + then: > > + properties: > > + gpio-reserved-ranges: false > > + else: > > + properties: > > + gpio-reserved-ranges: > > + items: > > + - const: 5 > > + - const: 1 > > Why reserved ranges are fixed? If they pins are *always* not accessible, > then these are not GPIOs. This really looks incorrect. It's model-dependent. The ADP5585 has 11 pins that can be used as GPIOs. They are named GPIO 1 to GPIO 11 in the datasheet. The -01 variant uses the pin associated with GPIO 6 for a different purpose, so GPIO 6 is not usable. That maps to index 5 as GPIO numbers in DT bindings are 0-based. I've decided to handle that as a reserved GPIO range to keep the GPIO 7 to GPIO 11 indices the same across all ADP5585 variants. > Anyway, testing reports failures which *must* be addressed, one way or > another. Yes I'll fix that. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
