From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F799492E31; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 13:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789047115; cv=none; b=bAMLUFnfM7ROPIrtfKg1xXfmh63KsYY/JpIN800jiET9A5CGjpqFR+0ns0hC/t9XDyygxDzvuhd2SaZVyaDOCei+SqK/XZrF3zxeOe4u+K6KgKSiXWWrE08VU90C3UtCPFohcns1J6M0vqxD8abTiGlUXnJXDDv4Fr3ZrY68N1U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789047115; c=relaxed/simple; bh=q2y1E+jfz+e2loPgk5uTMKvJJpPn2qFQADreOTA75TE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KqfthMLuBWXAgSo0VjRF8lgyvctTDv8BGBltXCPzJerHcHhboRiFqWtAL1XpnAYM8Fex63+MXn+T/p6ePnKkTvvMbd7beL1O3LjETY86G4IsUKj9zHMFWExyvVcenRp4/RTpfZppyVpkMT+yOYLI727UbrmJcXwIAjCzA/3R6vg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=LH9up4Du; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="LH9up4Du" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBAF2153B; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 06:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.24] (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7201E3F528; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 06:31:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1789047112; bh=q2y1E+jfz+e2loPgk5uTMKvJJpPn2qFQADreOTA75TE=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=LH9up4Du6y4lg3MG2LYVykgQw0LKCGzFD7zHgyyrJrMa0ENvf0EYwGNnyn2inXtKw jPfnW+q+TLHjAisKlgb1xbRyeNUguD1docHILvcFytT8kkTNw1e1N0AYWs7+xTAP1m +tGr4x8OHatjQ5Kj1/wEKH3r9C8hDRgVcnc8z/2M= Message-ID: <82b2541c-ea6b-41d0-89b1-ecf9a9920cd9@arm.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 15:31:40 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] pinctrl: sunxi: a523-r: add a733-r compatible string To: Julian Calaby Cc: Linus Walleij , Chen-Yu Tsai , Samuel Holland , Jernej Skrabec , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Yixun Lan , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev References: <20250821004232.8134-1-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20250821004232.8134-9-andre.przywara@arm.com> Content-Language: en-GB From: Andre Przywara In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Julian, I know this email is almost comically old, but still didn't want this left unanswered before sending a new revision: On 8/24/25 01:09, Julian Calaby wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:46 AM Andre Przywara wrote: >> >> The secondary Allwinner A733 pincontroller ("-r") is interestingly not >> using the same new MMIO frame layout as the main controller, but is in >> fact very similar to the A523-r one: it has two banks, with 14 and 6 pins >> each. From the driver's perspective, this is all we care about, so we can >> re-use the a523-r pinctrl driver for the a733-r, too. >> >> The individual pinmux settings are different, so we must not use the >> a523-r compatible string as a fallback, but we can surely let the same >> driver care for both the a523-r and a733-r IP, as the pinmux values will >> be provided by the DT. > > If the bank and pin counts are the same and the pinmux values are > provided by the DT, that means they _are_ compatible, right? I wouldn't say so: I would argue the devices are different, and not necessarily every driver written for the old device can cope with the new one. For instance U-Boot still goes with hardcoded pinmux tables (because that's simpler to implement there), which don't match between A523-R and A733-R. And I would see a point if that would enable old kernels to use that new SoC, but because the main pinctrl is different anyway, that doesn't help us. But it's not a very strong opinion, so if the maintainers disagree with me, I am happy to change that. Cheers, Andre