From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1109BD232C6 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 01:17:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From :Subject:Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=LwK/7HWLNZdkoZbc3509z1EnYSgWBHAg3nkDVt2PhWA=; b=ZkJ8YINsIqNkVaCOQjLLuWlTvS UffdJ0t5eScGYQPkx3grsDqEXOI8RQaFkOoFibZVUQJ+vgVM1OFpH+tcPGCGr5h/gQ+aJDfjl8Wr4 fZQy7l34tnwbeWKmkt9HjCdLDQFSKUcUwqZfxNaeG4S05lDGhW0jkBBJ072MJUZimu9VRl64zIlsu lY7Ov5StQmOJrR8Cc/e+8z2aWJAe06GeljFVe+UkcJSUgekJGoBFyj9HN7QVZo9Zh2pUwWUSRflAT /DPeEeC/ItXqLeKEGxwlUTZVWsMhHylnxhoZBDvxnnMaxcbauoEb3LeeEJPYZR7cfhW/0amYMCVNR dGzScxnw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ve18H-000000013oR-2NLw; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 01:17:41 +0000 Received: from pi.codeconstruct.com.au ([203.29.241.158] helo=codeconstruct.com.au) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ve18F-000000013ny-2KCn for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 01:17:40 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codeconstruct.com.au; s=2022a; t=1767921457; bh=LwK/7HWLNZdkoZbc3509z1EnYSgWBHAg3nkDVt2PhWA=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=FBjtDv7pUlyQuW0vTX7EesZslU0r4uFRyOYi3Pd0Wk1zqc/bokiLlqYR2AXRqdXQk un0pBO2N1yEdS8OFrG7NJALuJBb/q23oequJ5ojCDahrnrnxx/fmtvfgnfgpeq+2Pz qEJlRwU+TSyYDQP5W9AiQXE1h71pfWaL/iiHY0PtblZi1OuGyc351stq1fSiAlWHKA 2IiJlURKUoesVvWjY+4dLPSRfNwBOhZBpsYR7kgqWUkClGJFtqpfpiPAJdFrhG2i99 uR4bvL5JVJU9D5mkJh8dRa22b3yH+faWEKPL+wFc9MPp8AndVUW0P+zAGOe/ukAKVp gg1TEqZF5zEhw== Received: from [192.168.68.115] (unknown [180.150.112.60]) by mail.codeconstruct.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 081A87E142; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 09:17:36 +0800 (AWST) Message-ID: <0b94a728bdee2483d0e963bdae69178539ed7721.camel@codeconstruct.com.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 03/16] pinctrl: aspeed: g5: Allow use of LPC node instead of LPC host controller From: Andrew Jeffery To: Linus Walleij Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Joel Stanley , linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:47:36 +1030 In-Reply-To: References: <20251211-dev-dt-warnings-all-v1-0-21b18b9ada77@codeconstruct.com.au> <20251211-dev-dt-warnings-all-v1-3-21b18b9ada77@codeconstruct.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2-0+deb13u1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260108_171739_788584_924836DD X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 11.51 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, 2025-12-31 at 22:38 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 9:46=E2=80=AFAM Andrew Jeffery > wrote: >=20 > > There's currently a wart where the Aspeed LPC host controller has no > > binding specified, but the pinctrl binding depends on referencing its > > node. > >=20 > > Allow specification of a phandle to the parent LPC controller instead. > > Fall back to testing for a compatible parent node if the provided > > phandle doesn't directly resolve to the LPC controller node. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery >=20 > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij >=20 > I guess when this is non-RFC I will just apply these two patches. Yeah, no dramas. I intend to split what remains to be applied into separate (non-RFC) follow-up series now that many of the changes have been applied. Andrew