Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Bernhard =?utf-8?Q?Rosenkr=C3=A4nzer?= <bero@baylibre.com>,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, matthias.bgg@gmail.com,
        angelogiocchino.delregno@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add bindings for Mediatek
 MT8365 SoC
In-Reply-To: <06e916b7-f8f2-6de5-f86e-7b020c052451@linaro.org>
References: <20221117210356.3178578-1-bero@baylibre.com>
 <20221117210356.3178578-5-bero@baylibre.com>
 <06e916b7-f8f2-6de5-f86e-7b020c052451@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:52:30 -0800
Message-ID: <7ha64o9h1d.fsf@baylibre.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Krzysztof,

Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> writes:

> On 17/11/2022 22:03, Bernhard Rosenkr=C3=A4nzer wrote:
>> Add devicetree bindings for Mediatek MT8365 pinctrl driver.
>>=20
>> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Rosenkr=C3=A4nzer <bero@baylibre.com>
>
> Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve.
>
>> +
>> +  pins-are-numbered:
>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
>> +    description: |
>> +      Specify the subnodes are using numbered pinmux to specify pins.
>
> Why would you name pins differently per board? And why this different
> naming of the same pins is a property of hardware?
>
> This looks like something to drop.

Yeah, having this as a flag kind of implies that this could be present
for some boards but not others.  But in practice, the driver requires it
to be present or just fails[1].  What's the right way to describe that?
We're just trying to add a binding that reflects the existing driver.

We also noticed that there's another documented binding with this
same flag[2] where similiarily, the driver simply requires it to be
present[2].

So is the way this flag is documented in the stm32 binding OK for the
mediatek one also?  If not, what would you suggest?

Thanks for the review,

Kevin

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree=
/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common.c#n1053
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree=
/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml#n37
[3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree=
/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c#n1499