On Fri 18 Oct 2024 at 17:01, Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jerome, > Thanks for your reply. > > On 2024/10/18 16:39, Jerome Brunet wrote: >> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ] >> On Fri 18 Oct 2024 at 10:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 18/10/2024 10:10, Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay wrote: >>>> From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Add the new compatible name for Amlogic A4 pin controller, and add >>>> a new dt-binding header file which document the detail pin names. >> the change does not do what is described here. At least the description >> needs updating. >> > > Will do. > >> So if the pin definition is now in the driver, does it mean that pins have >> to be referenced in DT directly using the made up numbers that are >> created in pinctrl-amlogic-a4.c at the beginning of patch #2 ? >> > > Yes. > >> If that's case, it does not look very easy a read. >> > > It does happen. The pin definition does not fall under the category of > binding. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/106f4321-59e8-49b9-bad3-eeb57627c921@xxxxxxxxxxx/ So the expectation is that people will write something like: reset-gpios = <&gpio 42 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; And others will go in the driver to see that is maps to GPIOX_10 ? the number being completly made up, with no link to anything HW/Datasheet whatsoever ? This is how things should be done now ? > >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >> -- >> Jerome -- Jerome
