Hi, On 4/6/24 3:52 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 3:37 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> For all the "score" pin-groups all the intel_pingroup-s to select >> the non GPIO function are re-used for byt_score_gpio_groups[]. >> >> But this is incorrect since a pin-group includes the mode setting, >> which for the non GPIO functions generally is 1, where as to select >> the GPIO function mode must be set to 0. >> >> So the GPIO function needs separate intel_pingroup-s with their own mode >> value of 0. >> >> Add foo_gpio entries for each function to byt_score_groups[] and make all >> the byt_score_gpio_groups[] entries point to these instead to fix this. >> >> The "sus" pin-groups got this correct until commit 2f46d7f7e959 ("pinctrl: >> baytrail: Add pinconf group + function for the pmu_clk") added support for >> the pmu_clk pins following the broken "score" model. >> >> Add pmu_clk?_grp_gpio entries to byt_sus_groups[] and point to those >> in byt_sus_gpio_groups[] to fix this. > > I'm wondering if it's possible to add some code to imply all these. I > mean to have a comparator to the _gpio in the naming and generate them > at runtime and add. In this case if we add / modify the original one > the rest (for _gpio cases) will be done automatically. Yes some better solution for this would be nice but I don't have time to work on this, so I suggest to just move forward with this fix for now. Regards, Hans