On 21/10/2024 08:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> >>>> 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? >> >> That's what being proposed here, as far as I can see. >> >> GPIOX_10 (not GPIO 10) maps to 42. If this goes through, for DTs to be >> valid in any OS, all need to share the same definition. That looks like >> a binding to me. >> >> On these SOC, gpios in each controller are organized in bank with >> different number of pins. So far, this was represented as single linear >> array and that was not a problem since the mapping was part of the binding. >> >> Are you suggesting 2 params instead of one ? something like this maybe ? >> >> reset-gpios = <&gpio BANK_X 10 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > No, I propose the same as you wrote: > <&gpio 10 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW> > > but I don't mind putting bank there. > >> >> This means this A4 controller will be software incompatible with the >> previous generation. It will need to handled differently eventhough the >> HW is exactly the same. >> >> Note that some form of binding would still be required to define the >> banks which are referenced by arbitrary letter in doc, not numbers. > > Usually banks are considered separate gpio controllers, so numbering > always start from 0 because phandle encodes the bank. > > And this is exactly what Rob already asked in v1 review. Ha, actually I misread his reply, I think he proposed your syntax: <&gpio BANK_X 10 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW> Best regards, Krzysztof
