On 21/10/2024 12:38, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> ====><================= >>> +/* Standard port */ >>> +#define GPIOB_START 0 >>> +#define GPIOB_NUM 14 >>> + >>> +#define GPIOD_START (GPIOB_START + GPIOB_NUM) >>> +#define GPIOD_NUM 16 >>> + >>> +#define GPIOE_START (GPIOD_START + GPIOD_NUM) >>> +#define GPIOE_NUM 2 >>> + >>> +#define GPIOT_START (GPIOE_START + GPIOE_NUM) >>> +#define GPIOT_NUM 23 >>> + >>> +#define GPIOX_START (GPIOT_START + GPIOT_NUM) >>> +#define GPIOX_NUM 18 >>> + >>> +#define PERIPHS_PIN_NUM (GPIOX_START + GPIOX_NUM) >>> + >>> +/* Aobus port */ >>> +#define GPIOAO_START 0 >>> +#define GPIOAO_NUM 7 >>> + >>> +/* It's a special definition, put at the end, just 1 num */ >>> +#define GPIO_TEST_N (GPIOAO_START + GPIOAO_NUM) >>> +#define AOBUS_PIN_NUM (GPIO_TEST_N + 1) >>> + >>> +#define AMLOGIC_GPIO(port, offset) (port##_START + (offset)) >>> ====><================= >>> >>> is exactly what rob asked for, and you nacked it. >> >> No, this is not what was asked, at least according to my understanding. >> Number of GPIOs is not an ABI. Neither is their relationship, where one >> starts and other ends. > > I confirm this need some work, but it moved the per-pin define to start > and ranges, so what did rob expect ? > >> >> Maybe I missed something, but I could not find any users of these in the >> DTS. Look: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241014-a4_pinctrl-v2-3-3e74a65c285e@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > So you want consumers before the bindings ? strange argument > >> >> Where is any of above defines? >> >> Maybe they will be visible in the consumer code, but I did not imagine >> such use. You expect: >> reset-gpios = <&ctrl GPIOAO_START 1>??? > > No I expect: > reset-gpios = <&ctrl AMLOGIC_GPIO(B, 0) 1>; > > but the macro should go along the dts like we did for the reset defines, > so perhaps this is the solution ? OK, so I said it was not a binding: https://lore.kernel.org/all/u4afxqc3ludsic4n3hs3r3drg3ftmsbcwfjltic2mb66foo47x@xe57gltl77hq/ and you here confirm, if I understood you correctly, that it goes with the DTS like reset defines (I assume non-ID like defines?), so also not a binding? What are we disagreeing with? Just to recall, Jerome asked whether you have to now use arbitrary numbers in DTS and my answer was: not. It's still the same answer. Best regards, Krzysztof
