From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] microchip mpfs/pic64gx pinctrl questions
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 14:55:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251013-prune-deflector-b10b84425a33@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYssH8zObJTUH2VVB7FrVFmJUd+Ea7etTGbicQgkuU=CA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1880 bytes --]
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 03:27:57PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 5:55 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > So, what I ended up doing is moving the "gpio2" stuff to use
> > functions/groups as your gemini stuff does, so each function contains
> > one group containing all the pins it needs - except for the gpio
> > function which contains analogues for each of the function's groups.
>
> I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but if it entails any
All I meant is that the functions for non-gpio things contain a group
with the pins they need, up to 10 groups for 10 non-gpio functions, and
that the gpio function, since each pin can do gpio and exactly one other
function, contains 10 groups, all of which are identical to a group
already defined for the non-gpio function. That's instead of having one
huge group with all 32 pins.
> entanglement of the GPIO function with another function, then
> there is the recent patch from Bartosz in commit
> 11aa02d6a9c222260490f952d041dec6d7f16a92
> which makes it possible to give the pin control framework
> an awareness of what a GPIO function is by reading hardware
> properties, and that it is sometimes separate from other functions.
That is unrelated, but interesting. What I don't really understand from
the commit message itself is whether this is useful if the pinctrl
driver is not also acting as a gpiochip driver. In my case, the pinctrl
hardware is not capable of doing anything more than muxing functions,
and the gpio function I talk about means routing a "real" gpio
controller's IO to the pins controlled by the driver I am talking about.
The 2 in "gpio 2" refers to the specific controller.
The rest of that thread makes it seem like this is intended for some
qcom devices where the pinctrl hardware is also a gpiochip.
Cheers,
Conor.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-13 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-26 14:33 [RFC 0/5] microchip mpfs/pic64gx pinctrl questions Conor Dooley
2025-09-26 14:33 ` [RFC 1/5] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add polarfire soc iomux0 pinmux Conor Dooley
2025-09-26 14:33 ` [RFC 2/5] dt-bindings: pinctrl: add pic64gx "gpio2" pinmux Conor Dooley
2025-10-01 11:32 ` Linus Walleij
2025-10-01 15:47 ` Conor Dooley
2025-10-01 15:48 ` Conor Dooley
2025-10-13 10:56 ` Linus Walleij
2025-10-13 11:22 ` Conor Dooley
2025-09-26 14:33 ` [RFC 3/5] pinctrl: add polarfire soc iomux0 pinmux driver Conor Dooley
2025-10-01 11:34 ` Linus Walleij
2025-10-01 11:36 ` Linus Walleij
2025-10-01 15:45 ` Conor Dooley
2025-10-13 11:02 ` Linus Walleij
2025-10-13 11:42 ` Conor Dooley
2025-10-14 10:27 ` Linus Walleij
2025-09-26 14:33 ` [RFC 4/5] pinctrl: add pic64gx "gpio2" " Conor Dooley
2025-09-26 14:33 ` [RFC 5/5] riscv: dts: microchip: add pinctrl nodes for iomux0 Conor Dooley
2025-10-01 11:29 ` [RFC 0/5] microchip mpfs/pic64gx pinctrl questions Linus Walleij
2025-10-01 16:00 ` Conor Dooley
2025-10-01 16:15 ` Conor Dooley
2025-10-09 15:55 ` Conor Dooley
2025-10-13 13:27 ` Linus Walleij
2025-10-13 13:55 ` Conor Dooley [this message]
2025-10-14 10:33 ` Linus Walleij
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251013-prune-deflector-b10b84425a33@spud \
--to=conor@kernel.org \
--cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).