Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Add support for Amlogic A4 SoCs

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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