Re: [PATCH v7 00/16] pinctrl: introduce the concept of a GPIO pin function category

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>]

On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 1:59 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:

> We have many Qualcomm SoCs (and I can imagine it's a common pattern in
> other platforms as well) where we mux a pin to "gpio" function using the
> `pinctrl-X` property in order to configure bias or drive-strength and
> then access it using the gpiod API. This makes it impossible to mark the
> pin controller module as "strict".
>
> This series proposes to introduce a concept of a sub-category of
> pinfunctions: GPIO functions where the above is not true and the pin
> muxed as a GPIO can still be accessed via the GPIO consumer API even for
> strict pinmuxers.

This is what I want for pin control, and fixes an ages old issue
that pin control has no intrinsic awareness of if a pin is muxed
to a function providing GPIO.
So patches applied!

Any remaining code nitpicks can be fixed in-tree, I need this
to be able to apply the much desired Broadcom STB driver,
so this needs to go into -next now for cooking.

I also want to strictify some drivers using this, bringing GPIO
function awareness into them, which is a good thing!

Yours,
Linus Walleij