Re: [PATCH v2 06/17] arm64: dts: imx93-14x14-evk: Add board muxes to select between FlexCAN1 and MQS1
From: Chancel Liu <hidden>
Date: 2026-08-19 10:09:22
Also in:
imx, sashiko-reviews
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Medium] The amplifier enable GPIO for MQS1 is incorrectly modeled as a multiplexer to hijack the pinctrl subsystem. ----- Patch [6]: [PATCH v2 06/17] arm64: dts: imx93-14x14-evk: Add board muxes to select between FlexCAN1 and MQS1 ---commit cd0b6d22bf4426d5f5510c7f3a258a4b50405fb8 Author: Chancel Liu [off-list ref] arm64: dts: imx93-14x14-evk: Add board muxes to select between FlexCAN1 and MQS1 FlexCAN1 has pin conflict with MQS1. Add GPIO-controlled board muxes to route shared signals between FlexCAN1 and MQS1.quoted
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93-14x14-evk.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93-14x14-evk.dts index ec78c03f4788b..6dcfbca65cbd5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93-14x14-evk.dts +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93-14x14-evk.dts@@ -37,6 +37,36 @@ chosen { stdout-path = &lpuart1; };[ ... ]quoted
+ mqs1_amp_en_mux: mux-controller-1 { + compatible = "gpio-mux"; + #mux-control-cells = <0>; + #mux-state-cells = <1>; + mux-gpios = <&pcal6524_2 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; + };[Severity: Medium] Is it appropriate to use the gpio-mux binding to control an amplifier enable pin? Device Tree generally describes the hardware structure. A hardware multiplexer routes signals between inputs and outputs, whereas an amplifier enable pin is usually a binary control. Would it be better to model this with an audio-amplifier or regulator-fixed node so that standard power management can dynamically toggle the amplifier during audio playback and suspend, rather than statically evaluating it as a mux state?
That's a good point. I will try to model it with an audio-amplifier device. Regards, Chancel Liu