On 23/10/2024 12:08, Antonio Borneo wrote: > On Wed, 2024-10-23 at 10:51 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:56:55PM +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote: >>> From: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Add support for st,stm32mp215-pinctrl and st,stm32mp215-z-pinctrl. >> >> So all previous patches are for this? Then they are supposed to be here. > > Hi Krzysztof, > > I'm not sure I fully get your point here. > The previous patches in this series add the new features to the already upstreamed STM32MP257. > The same features are also needed here by STM32MP215 and in next patches 12/14 and 13/14 by STM32MP235. commit msgs could be improved here, sorry, I have no clue for what devices are you bringing this for. Putting here new SoC clearly suggests that it is for new Soc, so entire split is incorrect. > >> >>> Add packages AM, AN and AO (values : 0x1000, 0x2000 and 0x8000) >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml | 4 +++- >>> include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/stm32-pinfunc.h | 3 +++ >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml >>> index 9a7ecfea6eb5b..0a2d644dbece3 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml >>> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ properties: >>> - st,stm32mp135-pinctrl >>> - st,stm32mp157-pinctrl >>> - st,stm32mp157-z-pinctrl >>> + - st,stm32mp215-pinctrl >>> + - st,stm32mp215-z-pinctrl >>> - st,stm32mp257-pinctrl >>> - st,stm32mp257-z-pinctrl >>> >>> @@ -59,7 +61,7 @@ properties: >>> Indicates the SOC package used. >>> More details in include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/stm32-pinfunc.h >>> $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 >>> - enum: [0x1, 0x2, 0x4, 0x8, 0x100, 0x400, 0x800] >>> + enum: [0x1, 0x2, 0x4, 0x8, 0x100, 0x400, 0x800, 0x1000, 0x2000, 0x4000] >>> >>> patternProperties: >>> '^gpio@[0-9a-f]*$': >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/stm32-pinfunc.h b/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/stm32-pinfunc.h >>> index af3fd388329a0..01bc8be78ef72 100644 >>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/stm32-pinfunc.h >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/pinctrl/stm32-pinfunc.h >>> @@ -41,6 +41,9 @@ >>> #define STM32MP_PKG_AI 0x100 >>> #define STM32MP_PKG_AK 0x400 >>> #define STM32MP_PKG_AL 0x800 >>> +#define STM32MP_PKG_AM 0x1000 >>> +#define STM32MP_PKG_AN 0x2000 >>> +#define STM32MP_PKG_AO 0x4000 >> >> Why these are some random hex values but not for example 0x801, 0x802 >> and 0x803? That's an enum, so bitmask does not make sense here. > > The are bitmask. You can check in patch 14/14 that adds a new package to the existing code of STM32MP257. > Do you prefer I rewrite them all as, e.g. > #define STM32MP_PKG_AO (1 << 14) > ? OK, so where is this bitmask used in DTS? These are bindings, not some random defines for driver. Best regards, Krzysztof
