[PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[Alexandru Chimac]

All Exynos9610 pin controllers (except PINCTRL_TOP) have clocks assigned
to them, so force the nodes to have clocks assigned to them.

Signed-off-by: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>
---
Most Samsung Exynos9610 pin controllers (except TOP) have clocks
designated for them, so allow the device tree node to include clock
information for the driver.
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
index 1feb6a6fc690..e4fdedb29631 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ allOf:
             enum:
               - google,gs101-pinctrl
               - samsung,exynos8890-pinctrl
+              - samsung,exynos9610-pinctrl
     then:
       required:
         - clocks

---
base-commit: c2cd463d6ee7d55a3ec0719d93c49ff99022d58f
change-id: 20260922-exynos9610-pinctrl-patch-e0cc7118dc97

Best regards,
--  
Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] dt-bindings: pinctrl: over-constraint on exynos9610 clocks
--

commit 16b59636da37f1324cb6823b4e5fa7ff00df75fb
Author: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>
Subject: dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

This commit modifies the Samsung pinctrl devicetree binding to require
clocks for Exynos9610 pin controllers. It adds the Exynos9610 compatible
string to an existing conditional block that mandates clock properties.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> index 1feb6a6fc6908..e4fdedb29631b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ allOf:
>              enum:
>                - google,gs101-pinctrl
>                - samsung,exynos8890-pinctrl
> +              - samsung,exynos9610-pinctrl
>      then:
>        required:
>          - clocks

[Severity: Low]
Will this cause schema validation errors for the PINCTRL_TOP node?

The commit message notes that PINCTRL_TOP does not have a clock, but adding
the compatible string to this allOf if-then conditional block enforces that
all Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes must have the clocks and clock-names properties.

Since all pin controller blocks on this SoC (including TOP) share the same
samsung,exynos9610-pinctrl compatible string, this seems to over-constrain
the binding and would cause dtbs_check to fail for PINCTRL_TOP. 

Should samsung,exynos9610-pinctrl instead be exempted from the else block
(which sets clocks: false) without moving it into this then block where
clocks are strictly required?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260922-exynos9610-pinctrl-patch-v1-1-26d8108c1802@chimac.ro?part=1

[PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[Alexandru Chimac]

All Exynos9610 pin controllers (except PINCTRL_TOP) have clocks assigned
to them, so force the nodes to have clocks assigned to them.

Signed-off-by: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>
---
Most Samsung Exynos9610 pin controllers (except TOP) have clocks
designated for them, so allow the device tree node to include clock
information for the driver.
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
index 1feb6a6fc690..e4fdedb29631 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ allOf:
             enum:
               - google,gs101-pinctrl
               - samsung,exynos8890-pinctrl
+              - samsung,exynos9610-pinctrl
     then:
       required:
         - clocks

---
base-commit: c2cd463d6ee7d55a3ec0719d93c49ff99022d58f
change-id: 20260922-exynos9610-pinctrl-patch-e0cc7118dc97

Best regards,
--  
Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] dt-bindings: unconditional clock requirement breaks PINCTRL_TOP node
--

commit 8b1ed6a89af0afe8c1009cac2d735ea6bee6ec4b
Author: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>

dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

This commit updates the Samsung pinctrl bindings to require clocks for nodes
using the Exynos9610 compatible string, as most of these controllers have
designated clocks.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> index 1feb6a6fc6908..e4fdedb29631b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ allOf:
>              enum:
>                - google,gs101-pinctrl
>                - samsung,exynos8890-pinctrl
> +              - samsung,exynos9610-pinctrl
>      then:
>        required:
>          - clocks

[Severity: Medium]
Will this unconditional requirement break schema validation for the clockless
PINCTRL_TOP node?

The commit message explicitly acknowledges that the PINCTRL_TOP node does not
have clocks. Since all Exynos9610 pin controllers share the same compatible
string, applying an unconditional required rule for clocks causes a structurally
correct PINCTRL_TOP device tree node to fail dtbs_check validation.

Could the schema be adjusted so that clocks are allowed but not universally
required for this compatible string?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260922-exynos9610-pinctrl-patch-v1-1-f6d816696591@chimac.ro?part=1

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[Alexandru Chimac]

Hello!

> On 09/22/2026 3:31 PM EEST sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> 
>  
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] dt-bindings: unconditional clock requirement breaks PINCTRL_TOP node
> --
> 
> commit 8b1ed6a89af0afe8c1009cac2d735ea6bee6ec4b
> Author: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>
> 
> dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes
> 
> This commit updates the Samsung pinctrl bindings to require clocks for nodes
> using the Exynos9610 compatible string, as most of these controllers have
> designated clocks.
> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> > index 1feb6a6fc6908..e4fdedb29631b 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> > @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ allOf:
> >              enum:
> >                - google,gs101-pinctrl
> >                - samsung,exynos8890-pinctrl
> > +              - samsung,exynos9610-pinctrl
> >      then:
> >        required:
> >          - clocks
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Will this unconditional requirement break schema validation for the clockless
> PINCTRL_TOP node?

On TOP pinctrl node we can just set "clocks = <0>;", but that is a bit of
a hack.

> 
> The commit message explicitly acknowledges that the PINCTRL_TOP node does not
> have clocks. Since all Exynos9610 pin controllers share the same compatible
> string, applying an unconditional required rule for clocks causes a structurally
> correct PINCTRL_TOP device tree node to fail dtbs_check validation.
> 
> Could the schema be adjusted so that clocks are allowed but not universally
> required for this compatible string?

To be honest, I've tried looking a bit into the bindings format 
and I haven't found a way of doing an "else if" in this conditional. If
there is a way to add an "else if" to this, I will send a revised patch.

> 
> -- 
> Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260922-exynos9610-pinctrl-patch-v1-1-f6d816696591@chimac.ro?part=1
Regards,
Alexandru Chimac

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[Alexandru Chimac]

Sorry for the spam, I had some issues with the mail host but they're all
fixed now.

> On 09/22/2026 3:15 PM EEST Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro> wrote:
> 
>  
> All Exynos9610 pin controllers (except PINCTRL_TOP) have clocks assigned
> to them, so force the nodes to have clocks assigned to them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>
> ---
> Most Samsung Exynos9610 pin controllers (except TOP) have clocks
> designated for them, so allow the device tree node to include clock
> information for the driver.
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> index 1feb6a6fc690..e4fdedb29631 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/samsung,pinctrl.yaml
> @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ allOf:
>              enum:
>                - google,gs101-pinctrl
>                - samsung,exynos8890-pinctrl
> +              - samsung,exynos9610-pinctrl
>      then:
>        required:
>          - clocks
> 
> ---
> base-commit: c2cd463d6ee7d55a3ec0719d93c49ff99022d58f
> change-id: 20260922-exynos9610-pinctrl-patch-e0cc7118dc97
> 
> Best regards,
> --  
> Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 22/09/2026 14:15, Alexandru Chimac wrote:
> All Exynos9610 pin controllers (except PINCTRL_TOP) have clocks assigned
> to them, so force the nodes to have clocks assigned to them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>
> ---
> Most Samsung Exynos9610 pin controllers (except TOP) have clocks
> designated for them, so allow the device tree node to include clock

I don't understand above. It's contradictory to commit msg which says
ALL. Here you say most.


Why two commit msgs?

> information for the driver.

that's ABI break without reason.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[Alexandru Chimac]

Hello!
> On 09/23/2026 5:58 PM EEST Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 22/09/2026 14:15, Alexandru Chimac wrote:
> > All Exynos9610 pin controllers (except PINCTRL_TOP) have clocks assigned
> > to them, so force the nodes to have clocks assigned to them.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>
> > ---
> > Most Samsung Exynos9610 pin controllers (except TOP) have clocks
> > designated for them, so allow the device tree node to include clock
> 
> I don't understand above. It's contradictory to commit msg which says
> ALL. Here you say most.
> 

On Exynos9610, only TOP pinctrl doesn't have a clock (as far as I'm
aware; haven't found a clock for it), while the rest of the pin controller
blocks do.

> 
> Why two commit msgs?

The first message is the commit message, and the second one is the b4
cover message. I wasn't actually sure how b4 handles that.

> 
> > information for the driver.
> 
> that's ABI break without reason.
> 

AFAIK there are no (publicly available) users of this device, so this
change shouldn't break any currently available device trees.

The best (most correct imo) implementation would be having the clock
properties be optional, pin controllers for Exynos9610 don't need
to be controlled by Linux for suspend/restore (change is more for
information(?) correctness anyway), since the CMUs should have HWACG
enabled anyway.

Regards,
Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Require clocks for Exynos9610 pinctrl nodes

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 07:14:55PM +0300, Alexandru Chimac wrote:
> Hello!
> > On 09/23/2026 5:58 PM EEST Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> >  
> > On 22/09/2026 14:15, Alexandru Chimac wrote:
> > > All Exynos9610 pin controllers (except PINCTRL_TOP) have clocks assigned
> > > to them, so force the nodes to have clocks assigned to them.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Chimac <alex@chimac.ro>
> > > ---
> > > Most Samsung Exynos9610 pin controllers (except TOP) have clocks
> > > designated for them, so allow the device tree node to include clock
> > 
> > I don't understand above. It's contradictory to commit msg which says
> > ALL. Here you say most.
> > 
> 
> On Exynos9610, only TOP pinctrl doesn't have a clock (as far as I'm
> aware; haven't found a clock for it), while the rest of the pin controller
> blocks do.

So how is it supposed to work if you require clock also for TOP pinctrl?

Best regards,
Krzysztof