| Message ID | 20231215-pinctrl-scmi-v1-4-0fe35e4611f7@nxp.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMI v3.2 pincontrol protocol basic support | expand |
Hi Peng, On 23-12-15, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > Add SCMI v3.2 pinctrl protocol bindings and example. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > index 4591523b51a0..bfd2b6a89979 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > @@ -247,6 +247,85 @@ properties: > reg: > const: 0x18 > > + protocol@19: ... > @@ -401,6 +480,26 @@ examples: > scmi_powercap: protocol@18 { > reg = <0x18>; > }; > + > + scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 { > + reg = <0x19>; > + #pinctrl-cells = <0>; > + > + i2c2-pins { > + groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b"; > + function = "i2c2"; > + }; > + > + mdio-pins { > + groups = "avb_mdio"; > + drive-strength = <24>; > + }; > + > + keys_pins: keys-pins { > + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; > + bias-pull-up; > + }; > + }; This example is different to the one you mentioned within the cover-letter. I didn't checked all patches just want to ask which API will be implemented by this patchset? Regards, Marco > }; > }; > > > -- > 2.37.1 > > >
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support pinctrl > protocol > > Hi Peng, > > On 23-12-15, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > Add SCMI v3.2 pinctrl protocol bindings and example. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 99 > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > index 4591523b51a0..bfd2b6a89979 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > @@ -247,6 +247,85 @@ properties: > > reg: > > const: 0x18 > > > > + protocol@19: > > ... > > > @@ -401,6 +480,26 @@ examples: > > scmi_powercap: protocol@18 { > > reg = <0x18>; > > }; > > + > > + scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 { > > + reg = <0x19>; > > + #pinctrl-cells = <0>; > > + > > + i2c2-pins { > > + groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b"; > > + function = "i2c2"; > > + }; > > + > > + mdio-pins { > > + groups = "avb_mdio"; > > + drive-strength = <24>; > > + }; > > + > > + keys_pins: keys-pins { > > + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; > > + bias-pull-up; > > + }; > > + }; > > This example is different to the one you mentioned within the cover-letter. I > didn't checked all patches just want to ask which API will be implemented by > this patchset? I kept this change since it was tested by Oleksii, but anyway i.MX not use these. The API, I suppose you are asking about this? static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_pinctrl_ops = { .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, #ifdef CONFIG_OF .dt_node_to_map = pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_all, .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, #endif }; static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_imx_pinctrl_ops = { .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, #ifdef CONFIG_OF .dt_node_to_map = pinctrl_scmi_imx_dt_node_to_map, .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, #endif }; Thanks, Peng. > > Regards, > Marco > > > }; > > }; > > > > > > -- > > 2.37.1 > > > > > >
Hi Peng, On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:52 PM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com> wrote: In this example, as it is not intended to reflect any specific hardware, use the latest canonical naming: > + > + scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 { > + reg = <0x19>; > + #pinctrl-cells = <0>; > + > + i2c2-pins { > + groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b"; groups = "g_i2c2_a", "g_i2c2_b"; > + function = "i2c2"; function = "f_i2c2"; > + }; > + > + mdio-pins { > + groups = "avb_mdio"; groups = "g_avb_mdio"; > + drive-strength = <24>; > + }; > + > + keys_pins: keys-pins { > + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; pins = "gpio_5_17", "gpio_5_20", "gpio_5_22", "gpio_2_1"; These names look odd to me, like these are actually groups with pins 5..17 etc. Should it be groups = "g_gpio_5_17" etc? Yours, Linus Walleij
On 23-12-20, Peng Fan wrote: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support pinctrl > > protocol > > > > Hi Peng, > > > > On 23-12-15, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > Add SCMI v3.2 pinctrl protocol bindings and example. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 99 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > index 4591523b51a0..bfd2b6a89979 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > @@ -247,6 +247,85 @@ properties: > > > reg: > > > const: 0x18 > > > > > > + protocol@19: > > > > ... > > > > > @@ -401,6 +480,26 @@ examples: > > > scmi_powercap: protocol@18 { > > > reg = <0x18>; > > > }; > > > + > > > + scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 { > > > + reg = <0x19>; > > > + #pinctrl-cells = <0>; > > > + > > > + i2c2-pins { > > > + groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b"; > > > + function = "i2c2"; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + mdio-pins { > > > + groups = "avb_mdio"; > > > + drive-strength = <24>; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + keys_pins: keys-pins { > > > + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; > > > + bias-pull-up; > > > + }; > > > + }; > > > > This example is different to the one you mentioned within the cover-letter. I > > didn't checked all patches just want to ask which API will be implemented by > > this patchset? > > I kept this change since it was tested by Oleksii, but anyway i.MX not use these. > > The API, I suppose you are asking about this? > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_pinctrl_ops = { > .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, > .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, > .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > .dt_node_to_map = pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_all, > .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, > #endif > }; > > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_imx_pinctrl_ops = { > .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, > .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, > .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > .dt_node_to_map = pinctrl_scmi_imx_dt_node_to_map, > .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, > #endif > }; I see, thanks for the clarification. In short: the i.MX SMCI pinctrl DT-API is the same as the non-SCMI pinctrl API since the dt_node_to_map will convert it. Regards, Marco
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support pinctrl > protocol > > On 23-12-20, Peng Fan wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support > > > pinctrl protocol > > > > > > Hi Peng, > > > > > > On 23-12-15, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > Add SCMI v3.2 pinctrl protocol bindings and example. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > --- > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 99 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > index 4591523b51a0..bfd2b6a89979 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > @@ -247,6 +247,85 @@ properties: > > > > reg: > > > > const: 0x18 > > > > > > > > + protocol@19: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > @@ -401,6 +480,26 @@ examples: > > > > scmi_powercap: protocol@18 { > > > > reg = <0x18>; > > > > }; > > > > + > > > > + scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 { > > > > + reg = <0x19>; > > > > + #pinctrl-cells = <0>; > > > > + > > > > + i2c2-pins { > > > > + groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b"; > > > > + function = "i2c2"; > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + mdio-pins { > > > > + groups = "avb_mdio"; > > > > + drive-strength = <24>; > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + keys_pins: keys-pins { > > > > + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; > > > > + bias-pull-up; > > > > + }; > > > > + }; > > > > > > This example is different to the one you mentioned within the > > > cover-letter. I didn't checked all patches just want to ask which > > > API will be implemented by this patchset? > > > > I kept this change since it was tested by Oleksii, but anyway i.MX not use > these. > > > > The API, I suppose you are asking about this? > > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_pinctrl_ops = { > > .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, > > .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, > > .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, > > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > > .dt_node_to_map = pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_all, > > .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, > > #endif > > }; > > > > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_imx_pinctrl_ops = { > > .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, > > .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, > > .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, > > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > > .dt_node_to_map = pinctrl_scmi_imx_dt_node_to_map, > > .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, > > #endif > > }; > > I see, thanks for the clarification. In short: the i.MX SMCI pinctrl DT-API is the > same as the non-SCMI pinctrl API since the dt_node_to_map will convert it. Yes, the fsl,pins format is same whether SCMI or non-SCMI. But we need to pack the data to a format that matches the i.MX OEM SCMI PINCTRL protocol, so we need to dedicated dt_node_to_map here. Thanks, Peng. > > Regards, > Marco
On 23-12-20, Peng Fan wrote: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support pinctrl > > protocol > > > > On 23-12-20, Peng Fan wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support > > > > pinctrl protocol > > > > > > > > Hi Peng, > > > > > > > > On 23-12-15, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > > > Add SCMI v3.2 pinctrl protocol bindings and example. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 99 > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > index 4591523b51a0..bfd2b6a89979 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > @@ -247,6 +247,85 @@ properties: > > > > > reg: > > > > > const: 0x18 > > > > > > > > > > + protocol@19: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > @@ -401,6 +480,26 @@ examples: > > > > > scmi_powercap: protocol@18 { > > > > > reg = <0x18>; > > > > > }; > > > > > + > > > > > + scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 { > > > > > + reg = <0x19>; > > > > > + #pinctrl-cells = <0>; > > > > > + > > > > > + i2c2-pins { > > > > > + groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b"; > > > > > + function = "i2c2"; > > > > > + }; > > > > > + > > > > > + mdio-pins { > > > > > + groups = "avb_mdio"; > > > > > + drive-strength = <24>; > > > > > + }; > > > > > + > > > > > + keys_pins: keys-pins { > > > > > + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; > > > > > + bias-pull-up; > > > > > + }; > > > > > + }; > > > > > > > > This example is different to the one you mentioned within the > > > > cover-letter. I didn't checked all patches just want to ask which > > > > API will be implemented by this patchset? > > > > > > I kept this change since it was tested by Oleksii, but anyway i.MX not use > > these. > > > > > > The API, I suppose you are asking about this? > > > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_pinctrl_ops = { > > > .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, > > > .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, > > > .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, > > > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > > > .dt_node_to_map = pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_all, > > > .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, > > > #endif > > > }; > > > > > > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_imx_pinctrl_ops = { > > > .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, > > > .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, > > > .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, > > > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > > > .dt_node_to_map = pinctrl_scmi_imx_dt_node_to_map, > > > .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, > > > #endif > > > }; > > > > I see, thanks for the clarification. In short: the i.MX SMCI pinctrl DT-API is the > > same as the non-SCMI pinctrl API since the dt_node_to_map will convert it. > > Yes, the fsl,pins format is same whether SCMI or non-SCMI. But we need > to pack the data to a format that matches the i.MX OEM SCMI PINCTRL > protocol, so we need to dedicated dt_node_to_map here. Yes, I saw that you're using the enum values 192-255 for the OEM specific part and the packing. Does you have public access to the FW implementing the SCMI? Regards, Marco > > Thanks, > Peng. > > > > > Regards, > > Marco > >
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support pinctrl > protocol > > On 23-12-20, Peng Fan wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: support > > > pinctrl protocol > > > > > > On 23-12-20, Peng Fan wrote: > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: > > > > > support pinctrl protocol > > > > > > > > > > Hi Peng, > > > > > > > > > > On 23-12-15, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Add SCMI v3.2 pinctrl protocol bindings and example. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 99 > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > > index 4591523b51a0..bfd2b6a89979 100644 > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > > > > > @@ -247,6 +247,85 @@ properties: > > > > > > reg: > > > > > > const: 0x18 > > > > > > > > > > > > + protocol@19: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -401,6 +480,26 @@ examples: > > > > > > scmi_powercap: protocol@18 { > > > > > > reg = <0x18>; > > > > > > }; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 { > > > > > > + reg = <0x19>; > > > > > > + #pinctrl-cells = <0>; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + i2c2-pins { > > > > > > + groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b"; > > > > > > + function = "i2c2"; > > > > > > + }; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + mdio-pins { > > > > > > + groups = "avb_mdio"; > > > > > > + drive-strength = <24>; > > > > > > + }; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + keys_pins: keys-pins { > > > > > > + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; > > > > > > + bias-pull-up; > > > > > > + }; > > > > > > + }; > > > > > > > > > > This example is different to the one you mentioned within the > > > > > cover-letter. I didn't checked all patches just want to ask > > > > > which API will be implemented by this patchset? > > > > > > > > I kept this change since it was tested by Oleksii, but anyway i.MX > > > > not use > > > these. > > > > > > > > The API, I suppose you are asking about this? > > > > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_pinctrl_ops = { > > > > .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, > > > > .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, > > > > .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, #ifdef > > > > CONFIG_OF > > > > .dt_node_to_map = pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_all, > > > > .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, #endif }; > > > > > > > > static const struct pinctrl_ops pinctrl_scmi_imx_pinctrl_ops = { > > > > .get_groups_count = pinctrl_scmi_get_groups_count, > > > > .get_group_name = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_name, > > > > .get_group_pins = pinctrl_scmi_get_group_pins, #ifdef > > > > CONFIG_OF > > > > .dt_node_to_map = pinctrl_scmi_imx_dt_node_to_map, > > > > .dt_free_map = pinconf_generic_dt_free_map, #endif }; > > > > > > I see, thanks for the clarification. In short: the i.MX SMCI pinctrl > > > DT-API is the same as the non-SCMI pinctrl API since the dt_node_to_map > will convert it. > > > > Yes, the fsl,pins format is same whether SCMI or non-SCMI. But we need > > to pack the data to a format that matches the i.MX OEM SCMI PINCTRL > > protocol, so we need to dedicated dt_node_to_map here. > > Yes, I saw that you're using the enum values 192-255 for the OEM specific > part and the packing. Does you have public access to the FW implementing > the SCMI? > The system manager firmware: https://github.com/nxp-imx/imx-sm Regards, Peng. > Regards, > Marco > > > > > Thanks, > > Peng. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Marco > > > >
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 07:56:32PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > Add SCMI v3.2 pinctrl protocol bindings and example. > Hi as I mentioned on the last patch review, I dont see adding all this vendor specific stuff in the ARM SCMI Pinctrl generic binding as a viable option, nor the per-protocol compatible to select slightly different behaviours. Thanks, Cristian
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml index 4591523b51a0..bfd2b6a89979 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml @@ -247,6 +247,85 @@ properties: reg: const: 0x18 + protocol@19: + type: object + allOf: + - $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node' + - $ref: /schemas/pinctrl/pinctrl.yaml + - if: + properties: + compatible: + const: fsl,imx95-scmi-pinctrl + then: + patternProperties: + "grp$": false + "-pins$": true + else: + patternProperties: + "grp$": false + "-pins$": true + unevaluatedProperties: false + + properties: + reg: + const: 0x19 + + '#pinctrl-cells': + const: 0 + + compatible: + const: fsl,imx95-scmi-pinctrl + + patternProperties: + '-pins$': + type: object + allOf: + - $ref: /schemas/pinctrl/pincfg-node.yaml# + - $ref: /schemas/pinctrl/pinmux-node.yaml# + unevaluatedProperties: false + + description: + A pin multiplexing sub-node describe how to configure a + set of pins is some desired function. + A single sub-node may define several pin configurations. + This sub-node is using default pinctrl bindings to configure + pin multiplexing and using SCMI protocol to apply specified + configuration using SCMI protocol. + + 'grp$': + type: object + description: + Pinctrl node's client devices use subnodes for desired pin configuration. + Client device subnodes use below standard properties. + + properties: + fsl,pins: + description: + each entry consists of 6 integers and represents the mux and config + setting for one pin. The first 5 integers <mux_reg conf_reg input_reg + mux_val input_val> are specified using a PIN_FUNC_ID macro, which can + be found in <arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95-pinfunc.h>. The last + integer CONFIG is the pad setting value like pull-up on this pin. Please + refer to i.MX95 Plus Reference Manual for detailed CONFIG settings. + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix + items: + items: + - description: | + "mux_reg" indicates the offset of mux register. + - description: | + "conf_reg" indicates the offset of pad configuration register. + - description: | + "input_reg" indicates the offset of select input register. + - description: | + "mux_val" indicates the mux value to be applied. + - description: | + "input_val" indicates the select input value to be applied. + - description: | + "pad_setting" indicates the pad configuration value to be applied. + + required: + - reg + additionalProperties: false $defs: @@ -401,6 +480,26 @@ examples: scmi_powercap: protocol@18 { reg = <0x18>; }; + + scmi_pinctrl: protocol@19 { + reg = <0x19>; + #pinctrl-cells = <0>; + + i2c2-pins { + groups = "i2c2_a", "i2c2_b"; + function = "i2c2"; + }; + + mdio-pins { + groups = "avb_mdio"; + drive-strength = <24>; + }; + + keys_pins: keys-pins { + pins = "GP_5_17", "GP_5_20", "GP_5_22", "GP_2_1"; + bias-pull-up; + }; + }; }; };