Hello Alex, On 29.10.24 16:39, Alexandre TORGUE wrote: > On 8/7/24 11:38, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >> Hello Oleksij, >> >> On 06.08.24 14:05, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >> There's bias-disable in stm32mp15-pinctrl.dtsi. You may want to add >> a /delete-property/ for that to make sure, it's not up to the driver >> which one has priority. >> >>> drive-push-pull; >>> slew-rate = <1>; >> >> These are already in qspi_bk1_pins_a. If repeating those is ok, why >> not go a step further and just duplicate the pinmux property and stay >> clear of this issue altogether, provided Alex is amenable to changing >> his mind regarding pinctrl groups in board device trees. > > I still prefer to have pin configuration defined in pinctrl dtsi file and I'll continue like this for ST board. The reason is that we try to reuse as much as possible pins when we create a new board and so it is easier to maintain if we declare them only one time. I can see the point for ST evaluation kits as ST customer hardware will often copy the reference designs. > But, I'm not blocked for "other" boards based on STM32 SoC. I mean, if it is simpler for you and above all if it avoid issues/complexities then, you can declare some pin groups in your board dts file. In this case we need to take care of the IO groups label name. That's good to hear and what I wanted to clarify. Especially for things like ADCs, there are so many possible permutations that there is no point for boards to add their pinctrl group to the main DTSI instead of just listing their specific pin configuration in the board DTS. Thanks, Ahmad > > regards > alex > >> >> >> Cheers, >> Ahmad >> > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
