> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > 发送时间: 2025年3月1日 2:58 > 收件人: Peng Fan (OSS) <[email protected]> > 抄送: Alice Guo (OSS) <[email protected]>; Tom Rini > <[email protected]>; Stefano Babic <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam > <[email protected]>; dl-uboot-imx <[email protected]>; Lukasz > Majewski <[email protected]>; Sean Anderson <[email protected]>; Simon > Glass <[email protected]>; Alper Nebi Yasak <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Alice Guo > <[email protected]> > 主题: Re: 回复: 回复: [PATCH v4 04/20] firmware: scmi: add pin control > protocol support to SCMI agent > > On 2/24/25 3:45 AM, Peng Fan wrote: > > [...] > > >>>>>>> @@ -436,6 +442,11 @@ static int scmi_bind_protocols(struct > >>>>>>> udevice > >>>> *dev) > >>>>>>> drv = > DM_DRIVER_GET(scmi_voltage_domain); > >>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> break; > >>>>>>> + case SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_PINCTRL: > >>>>>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PINCTRL_IMX_SCMI) && > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is this pinctrl protocol really imx specific ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If not, this needs to use some other config option to gate access to > >>>>>> it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Currently, it is used for some product families of the i.MX9 series > products. > >>>> Is the protocol iMX specific or is it generic protocol ? > >>> > >>> SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_PINCTRL is not unique to iMX, but > drivers/pinctrl/nxp/pinctrl-scmi.c (drv = DM_DRIVER_GET(scmi_pinctrl_imx)) is > only for iMX. > >> This patch is changing common code, it shouldn't be littered with > >> vendor-specific ifdeffery or if(IS_ENABLED(...))ery . Can this be > >> made fully generic, similar to e.g. regulator protocol ? > > > > In Linux Kernel, there are two drivers, pinctrl-scmi.c and > > pinctrl-imx-scmi.c. > > Both follows ARM SCMI 3.2, but pinctrl-imx-scmi has some special > > settings to align with i.mx iomuxc array based settings, mux,input,pad and > > etc. > > > > In gerneral, imx part could be merged with pinctrl-scmi.c but that > > will make code not clean. > In that case, why does U-Boot not have pinctrl-imx-scmi.c to contain the iMX > customization too ? If this protocol is IMX specific, it shouldn't be > ifdeffed in > common code.
Is it acceptable to rename " drivers/pinctrl/nxp/pinctrl-scmi.c" to "drivers/pinctrl/nxp/ pinctrl-imx-scmi.c"? SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_PINCTRL = 0x19 is not i.MX specific.
