Hi Krzysztof,

Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] writes:

On 17/11/2022 22:03, Bernhard Rosenkränzer wrote:

quoted

Add devicetree bindings for Mediatek MT8365 pinctrl driver.

Signed-off-by: Bernhard Rosenkränzer <redacted>

Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve.

quoted

+
+  pins-are-numbered:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag
+    description: |
+      Specify the subnodes are using numbered pinmux to specify pins.

Why would you name pins differently per board? And why this different
naming of the same pins is a property of hardware?

This looks like something to drop.

Yeah, having this as a flag kind of implies that this could be present
for some boards but not others.  But in practice, the driver requires it
to be present or just fails[1].  What's the right way to describe that?
We're just trying to add a binding that reflects the existing driver.

We also noticed that there's another documented binding with this
same flag[2] where similiarily, the driver simply requires it to be
present[2].

So is the way this flag is documented in the stm32 binding OK for the
mediatek one also?  If not, what would you suggest?

Thanks for the review,

Kevin

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pinctrl/mediatek/pinctrl-mtk-common.c#n1053
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/st,stm32-pinctrl.yaml#n37
[3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c#n1499