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 > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > --- > > 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
