Hi Geert,
Thank you for the review.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 10:55 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi John, Prabhakar,
>
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 at 02:57, John Madieu <john.madieu.xa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add support to configure the PFC_OEN register on the RZ/G3E SoC for
> > specific pins that require direction control via output-enable.
> >
> > On the RZ/G3E SoC, certain pins such as TXC_TXCLK must be switchable
> > between input and output modes depending on the PHY interface mode
> > (MII or RGMII). This behavior maps to the `output-enable` property in
> > the device tree and requires configuring the PFC_OEN register.
> >
> > Update the r9a09g047_variable_pin_cfg array to include PB1, PE1, PL0,
> > PL1, PL2, and PL4 with PIN_CFG_OEN flags to indicate support for this
> > feature. Define a new rzg3e_hwcfg structure with SoC-specific pin names
> > used for OEN bit mapping.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
>
> > @@ -3283,6 +3307,19 @@ static const char * const rzv2h_oen_pin_names[] = {
> > "XSPI0_CKN", "XSPI0_CKP"
> > };
> >
> > +static const char * const rzg3e_oen_pin_names[] = {
> > + "PB1", "PE1", "PL4", "PL1", "PL2", "PL0"
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct rzg2l_hwcfg rzg3e_hwcfg = {
> > + .regs = {
> > + .pwpr = 0x3c04,
> > + },
> > + .tint_start_index = 17,
> > + .oen_pin_names = rzg3e_oen_pin_names,
> > + .oen_pin_names_len = ARRAY_SIZE(rzg3e_oen_pin_names),
> > +};
> > +
> > static const struct rzg2l_hwcfg rzv2h_hwcfg = {
> > .regs = {
> > .pwpr = 0x3c04,
> > @@ -3352,7 +3389,7 @@ static struct rzg2l_pinctrl_data r9a09g047_data = {
> > .dedicated_pins = rzg3e_dedicated_pins,
> > .n_port_pins = ARRAY_SIZE(r9a09g047_gpio_configs) * RZG2L_PINS_PER_PORT,
> > .n_dedicated_pins = ARRAY_SIZE(rzg3e_dedicated_pins),
> > - .hwcfg = &rzv2h_hwcfg,
> > + .hwcfg = &rzg3e_hwcfg,
> > .variable_pin_cfg = r9a09g047_variable_pin_cfg,
> > .n_variable_pin_cfg = ARRAY_SIZE(r9a09g047_variable_pin_cfg),
> > .num_custom_params = ARRAY_SIZE(renesas_rzv2h_custom_bindings),
>
> I would rather use the existing .oen_{read,write}() abstraction,
> and thus provide new rzg3e_oen_{read,write}() implementations:
>
Ok.
> - .oen_read = &rzv2h_oen_read,
> - .oen_write = &rzv2h_oen_write,
> + .oen_read = &rzg3e_oen_read,
> + .oen_write = &rzg3e_oen_write,
>
> Of course this requires refactoring the existing rzv2h_pin_to_oen_bit()
> and rzv2h_oen_{read,write}() functions to avoid duplication.
> Do you agree?
>
Agreed.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
