Hi Angelo
On 2024-03-08 10:41, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 07/03/24 20:04, Justin Swartz ha scritto:
Add missing pinctrl-name and pinctrl-0 properties to declare
that the uart1_pins group is associated with serial0.
Signed-off-by: Justin Swartz <justin.swartz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi
b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi
index 35a10258f..dca415fdd 100644
--- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi
+++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi
@@ -123,6 +123,9 @@ serial0: serial@c00 {
reg-shift = <2>;
reg-io-width = <4>;
no-loopback-test;
+
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
+ pinctrl-0 = <&uart1_pins>;
};
spi0: spi@b00 {
The pins are muxed and can be either UART, or some other function that
is supported by the mux: this means that the pinctrl-xxx properties
shall
*not* go into the SoC dtsi file, but in board dts files instead.
Said differently: the usage of the UART pins is board-specific, not
SoC-wide.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the pinctrl properties
would make more sense in a serial node extension in a board's dts,
but my reason for including them in the SoC's dtsi is due to the
precedent set with these existing nodes:
i2c
spi0
mmc
ethernet
pcie
There is also a default function declared for each of the pin
groups defined under the pinctrl node. These functions co-incide
with what is intended for each of those device nodes to function
correctly, rather than in the alternative GPIO-mode.
So I thought that sticking with that existing pattern would get
the least resistance from the community.
I can imagine how moving the pinctrl node to the board dts, and
then moving all of the pinctrl properties associated with device
nodes to their board dts references could be a better separation
logically.
What do you recommend?
Regards
Justin
