Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] pinctrl: qcom: Add MSM8952 tlmm pinctrl driver

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Mismatch between function group definitions and hardware PINGROUP mux configurations, causing a WARN_ON and failure in msm_pinmux_set_mux().
--

commit bc142a6010c2c544a89b4c8ddff3446518100a52
Author: Muzaffer Kadir <muzafferkadir@mainlining.org>

pinctrl: qcom: Add MSM8952 tlmm pinctrl driver

This commit introduces the new MSM8952 pinctrl driver to support the
Qualcomm TLMM block found on the MSM8952 platform.

> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm8952.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm8952.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..c24f75641719d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm8952.c
[ ... ]
> +static const char *const qdss_tracedata_b_groups[] = {
> +	"gpio8",  "gpio9",  "gpio12", "gpio13", "gpio23", "gpio42",
> +	"gpio43", "gpio44", "gpio45", "gpio46", "gpio47", "gpio66",
> +	"gpio86", "gpio87", "gpio88", "gpio92",
> +};

[Severity: Medium]
Does the hardware configuration actually support qdss_tracedata_b on gpio8,
gpio9, gpio12, and gpio13? I noticed this array advertises support on these
pins, but their corresponding PINGROUP definitions below do not appear to
include this function.

[ ... ]
> +static const char *const atest_combodac_to_gpio_native_groups[] = {
> +	"gpio4",  "gpio12", "gpio13", "gpio20", "gpio21", "gpio28",  "gpio29",
> +	"gpio30", "gpio39", "gpio40", "gpio41", "gpio42", "gpio43",  "gpio44",
> +	"gpio45", "gpio46", "gpio47", "gpio48", "gpio67", "gpio115",
> +};

[Severity: Medium]
Similarly, does atest_combodac_to_gpio_native support routing to gpio12,
gpio13, gpio20, gpio21, gpio29, gpio30, and gpio41? This array lists them as
valid groups, but their PINGROUP declarations omit the function.

[ ... ]
> +static const struct msm_pingroup msm8952_groups[] = {
[ ... ]
> +	PINGROUP(8, blsp_spi3, blsp_uart3, sec_mi2s, pbs0, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA,
> +		 NA, NA, NA),

[Severity: Medium]
If the device tree or a built-in driver requests a function like
qdss_tracedata_b on gpio8 (which is advertised in the groups array but missing
from these PINGROUP macros), will this mismatch cause msm_pinmux_set_mux() to
exhaust its function list?

It looks like this would unconditionally trigger a WARN_ON during mux setup,
returning -EINVAL and aborting the device probe for the requesting device.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260904-msm8952-pinctrl-v4-0-671475ed1397@mainlining.org?part=2