pinctrl property checks

[rfc 0/2] pinctrl property checks

Posted by Conor Dooley 3 days, 22 hours ago

From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

Hey Linus,

Finally got around to sending the property stuff that we were talking
about. It's definitely not the best thing I have ever written, but I
think it does an okay job of warning about setups that don't make sense
while adding fairly little complexity wise.

Cheers,
Conor.

CC: Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>
CC: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
CC: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Conor Dooley (2):
  pinctrl: pinconf-generic: perform basic checks on pincfg properties
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: pincfg-node: add restrictions on conflicting
    properties

 .../bindings/pinctrl/pincfg-node.yaml         | 105 ++++++++++++++++--
 drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c             |  41 ++++++-
 2 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

-- 
2.51.0

Re: [rfc 0/2] pinctrl property checks

Posted by Linus Walleij 3 days, 15 hours ago

On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 6:30 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:

> Finally got around to sending the property stuff that we were talking
> about. It's definitely not the best thing I have ever written, but I
> think it does an okay job of warning about setups that don't make sense
> while adding fairly little complexity wise.

I like what I see and I think we should apply it for the v7.1 kernel cycle
post v7.0-rc1.

Are you ready to send a non-RFC version by then?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [rfc 0/2] pinctrl property checks

Posted by Conor Dooley 3 days, 1 hour ago

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 12:30:30AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 6:30 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Finally got around to sending the property stuff that we were talking
> > about. It's definitely not the best thing I have ever written, but I
> > think it does an okay job of warning about setups that don't make sense
> > while adding fairly little complexity wise.
> 
> I like what I see and I think we should apply it for the v7.1 kernel cycle
> post v7.0-rc1.
> 
> Are you ready to send a non-RFC version by then?

The rfc tag is was more because of the point in the cycle we are at than
the question on the driver patch. Sending a non-rtc then should be no
problem.