From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53961CA9EB0 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 23:20:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E80205C9 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 23:20:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="vYEVAhXl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728087AbfKCXUI (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:20:08 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:46225 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728144AbfKCXUH (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:20:07 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id e9so2279326ljp.13 for ; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 15:20:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iVpcN1vOdXs3wwhH+wrUa3RKCmoO3R8+a8ZB0f/AmFQ=; b=vYEVAhXlokOFcchNfSd+V2JmCbFdTJYbvhwaDedCzoFLvtj/YDjkH2J6fS4zy3hjCY qefgD/I7cMWurxOGbXoJERkCxJIgrE516+LJyYBlUqFQrh0cJ84nEZwuVoNtZ5ZUPPpO mqmECtStI09hzbCh3jYmpXbJCQMvbPG/TPUhiJ+MzdvIPR6xxCQWdjTArl89XE7eGWxI DCsqV9f8aY3E/lAXiwf4vcPC++iSRJ/SXB8nGa3e8MuJS56vcsrNGIUfEB6rBK1p/IRe UD5a/66390jHlTwMpnaM0AV/1fXQrM8Ulp6eCpL5FASsHrfuoLzHf8CjkyGG0Sp3zbZ+ AIxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iVpcN1vOdXs3wwhH+wrUa3RKCmoO3R8+a8ZB0f/AmFQ=; b=rbfw7iNWbLEQiD07NjBaEbdeAnN7TJyMIDpYnAk2reCESDf4OJTnKbF3eJC/WjvkEh CZbS7BWyw+tf94E6KdaQQj+hPajzsynvHqxP7uHacgMuYmspzwdnRpwD/CHImEjdhAdB DoePOuqmrFQsPhOOWC3YX10SAWhKSCcXSPG+9xJwH2PnQ2QaN9gVOlzSiCwMsXH0UeSg 99v3U0Z5na+DvfL2V4P+1oR/y6EJ2O0bf/fXa+EsTTUCEeUfxhwf+D8ObTU1wJVhGNoF ELcSRYiJHFm0v6zoJXP905AWQX59KG2C44H1uYpbhm/0U+HtutLRZt+Yq2VEkpgIEaFj 8TSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVrIxEQdoCBE1HNueQgttC+bMF1+cSK4/aB2OQx6JgvRs3QmjCo zBeP7A4dUBi7ujgrpKOgZlxCnoTcuwv6C6aRQldJWA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxTxFkdLmpGie3z+n1NoTiUXGL0EZTOt83bLBNwDXdy7iOJZES3zs0O3WqyGV8LxjgkqUR638pDafjAOULX0gI= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a0c9:: with SMTP id f9mr16639653ljm.77.1572823204990; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 15:20:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191029112700.14548-1-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <20191029112700.14548-9-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <20191029112700.14548-9-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> From: Linus Walleij Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:19:51 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/11] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom-wcd934x: Add bindings for gpio To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: Rob Herring , Mark Brown , Lee Jones , vinod.koul@linaro.org, "moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM..." , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , spapothi@codeaurora.org, bgoswami@codeaurora.org, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 12:29 PM Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > Qualcomm Technologies Inc WCD9340/WCD9341 Audio Codec has integrated > gpio controller to control 5 gpios on the chip. This patch adds > required device tree bindings for it. > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla > --- > .../pinctrl/qcom,wcd934x-pinctrl.yaml | 52 +++++++++++++++++++ The bindings look OK, but remind me if I have asked before (sorry then) does these GPIOs expose some pin control properties and that is why the driver is placed under pin control rather than the GPIO namespace? Sorry if this is something I asked before, I just get too much mail. Yours, Linus Walleij