On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 01:13:28PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi AKASHI,
On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 20:41, AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.akashi@linaro.org wrote:
With this patch, sandbox SCMI agent can handle pinctrl protocol. This feature is used in an unit test for SCMI pinctrl.
Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.akashi@linaro.org
arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts | 115 ++++ drivers/firmware/scmi/sandbox-scmi_agent.c | 722 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 837 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts b/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts index dc0bfdfb6e4b..d2ddea801995 100644 --- a/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts +++ b/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts @@ -723,9 +723,124 @@ }; }; };
pinctrl_scmi: protocol@19 {reg = <0x19>;pinctrl-names = "default","alternate";pinctrl-0 = <&scmi_pinctrl_gpios>, <&scmi_pinctrl_i2s>;pinctrl-1 = <&scmi_pinctrl_spi>, <&scmi_pinctrl_i2c>;+#if 0
Are these alternatives that you are testing?
I should have had more explanation. Yes, as I mentioned in the cover letter (and patch#4), there are two alternatives for defining SCMI pinctrl based gpio devices. Actually, this "#if" corresponds to the case (B) where gpio node is located under scmi node.
Since I didn't come up with any good way to switch two cases dynamically in the test, I had modified this option manually. (I left two "#if" here as the patch was an RFC, any way.)
Thanks, -Takahiro Akashi
The bindings look OK to me - is this how it is done in Linux?
Regards, Simon