Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Add devicetree bindings for DM816x SoC Pinctrl

["Ettore Chimenti" <ettore.chimenti@linaro.org>]

Hi Andreas,

On Tue Oct 20, 2026 at 9:51 PM CEST, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> [...]
>> Sorry, does dm814x.h not look as bindings? I'm a bit confused.
>
> probably also not the ideal placement in bindings.
>
>> FWIW, dm8148-evm.dts is not including the header, dm814x.dtsi is.
>> Following 
>> 
>> Basically PULL_ENA define in omap.h is wrong for DM8168 SoCs. 
>> 
>> For a better solution, you would prefer:
>> - Keep omap.h in dm816x.dtsi
>> - Add a variant like DM816X_PULL_{ENA,DIS} in dm816x.h
>> - Replace defines in dm8168-evm.dts
>> - Add the header in dm8168-evm.dts
>> 
>> or:
>> 
>> - Keep omap.h in dm816x.dtsi
>> - Add a variant like DM816X_PULL_{ENA,DIS} in omap.h
>> - Replace defines in dm8168-evm.dts
>> 
> Hmm, there is dm8168-evm.dts which uses PULL_UP / PULL_ENA
> in nandflash-pins. Do they factor in this inversion? Do you have that board
> by chance? We probably need to take the brush there anyways.

Andrew has one, AFAIK he already tested that, it should be fine.
We are checking the schematics anyway to be *extra* sure, but the board
boots and all the peripherals seem to work.

>
> If I had my head in some OMAP3/4/5 dts files with non-prefixed
> defines, I would probably not object against any PULL_ENA without
> DM816X_ in front of it if I am not very awake.
>
> So better do the undef and not use DM816X_ prefixes there.
> Maybe rename that file to dm816x-pinctrl.h. That is a bit
> inconsistent with the other omap files but at least that inconsistency
> can be catched by the compiler.
> Other arm32 platforms have things like e.g. nxp/imx/imx6sll-pinfunc.h

Ok, it is a nice idea, I'll refactor in dts/omap/ti, using the same
pattern as dm814x.h.

>
> Regards,
> Andreas

Thanks,
Ettore