[RESEND PATCH v2 0/2] pinctrl property checks

Conor Dooley posted 2 patches 1 month ago
.../bindings/pinctrl/pincfg-node.yaml         | 105 ++++++++++++++++--
drivers/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.c             |  41 ++++++-
2 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
[RESEND PATCH v2 0/2] pinctrl property checks
Posted by Conor Dooley 1 month ago
Hey Linus,

Here's a !rfc version of these property checks. Nothing has changed here
outside of a rebase on v7.0-rc1.

Resending because I managed to lose the CC list on all but the cover.

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: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/2] pinctrl property checks
Posted by Linus Walleij 1 month ago
On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 2:39 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:

> Here's a !rfc version of these property checks. Nothing has changed here
> outside of a rebase on v7.0-rc1.
>
> Resending because I managed to lose the CC list on all but the cover.

I applied these for next because why not! People have ample
time to test them now.

(Dropped an extraneous newline in the first patch.)

Yours,
Linus Walleij
Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/2] pinctrl property checks
Posted by Conor Dooley 1 month ago
On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:47:33PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 2:39 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
> 
> > Here's a !rfc version of these property checks. Nothing has changed here
> > outside of a rebase on v7.0-rc1.
> >
> > Resending because I managed to lose the CC list on all but the cover.
> 
> I applied these for next because why not! People have ample
> time to test them now.

I did not run a check at any point of all the arm or arm64 devicetrees,
I may go do that tomorrow and see if anything pops up. What's more
interesting is if someone comes along with the runtime warnings I think.

> (Dropped an extraneous newline in the first patch.)

I blame conflict resolution from my rebase for that one ;)

Thanks for grabbing it. I still owe you a generic function to replace
the amlogic one that I moved, but I have been busy and not picked up one
of the spacemit k1 boards yet.