On 18/10/2024 11:20, Jerome Brunet wrote: > 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 ? Why would you need to do this? Why it cannot be <&gpio 10 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>, assuming it is GPIO 10? Bindings have absolutely nothing to do with it. You have GPIO 10, not 42, right? Best regards, Krzysztof
