Hi Arm folks, Do you have any comment? I expect that you have had some assumption when you defined SCMI pinctrl protocol specification. On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 02:12:36PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:28???AM Oleksii Moisieiev > <Oleksii_Moisieiev@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + keys_pins: keys-pins { > > + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; > > + bias-pull-up; > > + }; > > This is kind of interesting and relates to my question about naming groups and > functions of GPIO pins. > > Here we see four pins suspiciously named "GP_*" which I read as > "generic purpose" > and they are not muxed to *any* function, yes pulled up. > > I would have expected something like: > > keys_pins: keys-pins { > groups = "GP_5_17_grp", "GP_5_20_grp", "GP_5_22_grp", "GP_2_1_grp"; > function = "gpio"; > pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; > bias-pull-up; > }; > > I hope this illustrates what I see as a problem in not designing in > GPIO as an explicit > function, I get the impression that these pins are GPIO because it is hardware > default. If you want to stick to "explicit", we may rather introduce a pre-defined sub-node name, "gpio", in a device tree binding, i.e. protocol@19 { // pinctrl protocol ... // other pinmux nodes scmi_gpio: gpio { // "gpio" is a fixed name keys-pins { pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; bias-pull-up; // possibly input or output }; input-pins { groups = "some group"; // any name input-mode; } output-pins { pins = "foo1", "foo2"; // any name output-mode; } } } It would indicate that all the succeeding nodes are for gpio definitions and *virtual* gpio pin numbers will be assigned in the order of appearances in "gpio" node. Then a client driver may refer to a gpio pin (say, GP_2_1?) like in the current manner: foo_device { ... reset-gpios = <&scmi_gpio 3 ...>; } -Takahiro Akashi > > Yours, > Linus Walleij