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! 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! Yours, Linus Walleij
