This is version 2 of the RFC.  The main reason I'm sending this is because
there was a bug in the first version where it didn't calculate the offset
correctly so pins and groups weren't linked correctly.

I've also fixed a few style issues that people pointed out.

These patches are basically as ready as they can be.  The remaining thing
is to figure out the format to describe it in the device tree.  Actually
that's probably already done, somewhat because people are already using
SCMI pinctrl?

AKASHI Takahiro (1):
  pinctrl: introduce pinctrl_gpio_get_config()

Dan Carpenter (6):
  firmware: arm_scmi: move boiler plate code into the get info functions
  firmware: arm_scmi: add is_gpio() function
  pinctrl-scmi: add PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_VALUE
  pinctrl: Delete PIN_CONFIG_OUTPUT_IMPEDANCE_OHMS support
  pinctrl-scmi: Add GPIO support
  pinctrl-scmi: remove unused struct member

 drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/pinctrl.c     | 142 +++++++++-------
 drivers/pinctrl/core.c                  |  31 ++++
 drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c          | 213 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
 include/linux/pinctrl/consumer.h        |   9 +
 include/linux/pinctrl/pinconf-generic.h |   3 +
 include/linux/scmi_protocol.h           |   2 +
 6 files changed, 331 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)

-- 
2.47.2

On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 9:38 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:

> This is version 2 of the RFC.  The main reason I'm sending this is because
> there was a bug in the first version where it didn't calculate the offset
> correctly so pins and groups weren't linked correctly.

I'm thinking of applying patches 4, 5 and 7 of this patch set to get
some movement in the code upstream and make less work for you
to rebase the thing, would this be OK?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 11:03:43AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 9:38 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > This is version 2 of the RFC.  The main reason I'm sending this is because
> > there was a bug in the first version where it didn't calculate the offset
> > correctly so pins and groups weren't linked correctly.
> 
> I'm thinking of applying patches 4, 5 and 7 of this patch set to get
> some movement in the code upstream and make less work for you
> to rebase the thing, would this be OK?

I think we need to hold of on 5.  I think patch 5 is the right thing, but
I need to make sure that it doesn't break anything.  I was hoping people
who care about it would let me know.

Applying patch 1 is pretty easy as well.  We could do that too.

Sorry for the delayed response.

regards,
dan carpenter