On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 1:37 PM Peng Fan [off-list ref] wrote:

And for i.MX95 OEM extenstion, do you have any suggestions?
I have two points:
1. use vendor compatible. This would also benefit when supporting vendor
protocol.
2. Introduce a property saying supporting-generic-pinconf

How do you think?

While I don't know how OEM extensions to SCMI were designed,
the pin control subsystem has the philosophy that extensions are
for minor fringe stuff, such as a pin config option that no other
silicon is using and thus have no use for anyone else. Well that
is actually all the custom extensions we have.
(This notion is even carried over to SCMI pinctrl.)

The i.MX95 OEM extension is really odd to me, it looks like a
reimplementation of the core aspects of SCMI pin control, and
looks much more like the old i.MX drivers than like the SCMI driver.

But I sure cannot speak of what is allowed in SCMI OEM
extensions or not.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel