On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 12:18:18AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 1:59 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > We have many Qualcomm SoCs (and I can imagine it's a common pattern in > > other platforms as well) where we mux a pin to "gpio" function using the > > `pinctrl-X` property in order to configure bias or drive-strength and > > then access it using the gpiod API. This makes it impossible to mark the > > pin controller module as "strict". > > > > This series proposes to introduce a concept of a sub-category of > > pinfunctions: GPIO functions where the above is not true and the pin > > muxed as a GPIO can still be accessed via the GPIO consumer API even for > > strict pinmuxers. > > This is what I want for pin control, and fixes an ages old issue > that pin control has no intrinsic awareness of if a pin is muxed > to a function providing GPIO. > So patches applied! No objections, let's move on. > Any remaining code nitpicks can be fixed in-tree, I need this > to be able to apply the much desired Broadcom STB driver, > so this needs to go into -next now for cooking. > > I also want to strictify some drivers using this, bringing GPIO > function awareness into them, which is a good thing! Well said! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
