mbox series

[v2,0/3] ARM: imx: only enable pinctrl as needed

Message ID 20240506-imx-pinctrl-optional-v2-0-bdff75085156@geanix.com
Headers show
Series ARM: imx: only enable pinctrl as needed | expand

Message

Esben Haabendal May 6, 2024, 10:23 a.m. UTC 
As not all mach-imx platforms has support for run-time changes of pin
configurations (such as LS1021A), a more selective approach to enabling
pinctrl infrastructure makes sense, so that an e.g. an LS1021A only kernel
could be built without pinctrl support.

This is a very late follow up v1 3 years ago [1]. The situation seems to be
unchanged since then, and I have tried to incorporate the requested
changes.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/be1c35eb997959b4939b304ef26664dfb9cd2275.1621941451.git.esben@geanix.com/

Changes since v1:
- Changed all the pinctrl drivers to be user-configurable, allowing disable
  even for systems with pinctrl.
- Added fixup of overly generic dependency for i.MX RT pinctrl drivers.
- Allow compile-testing of i.MX pinctrl drivers using CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST.

Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <esben@geanix.com>
---
Esben Haabendal (3):
      ARM: imx: Allow user to disable pinctrl
      pinctrl: freescale: Use CONFIG_SOC_IMXRT to guard i.MX RT1xxx drivers
      pinctrl: freescale: enable use with COMPILE_TEST

 arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig         | 16 -------
 drivers/pinctrl/freescale/Kconfig | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: dd5a440a31fae6e459c0d6271dddd62825505361
change-id: 20240506-imx-pinctrl-optional-63acd3db88dc

Best regards,

Comments

Linus Walleij May 27, 2024, 11:05 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 12:24 PM Esben Haabendal <esben@geanix.com> wrote:

> As not all mach-imx platforms has support for run-time changes of pin
> configurations (such as LS1021A), a more selective approach to enabling
> pinctrl infrastructure makes sense, so that an e.g. an LS1021A only kernel
> could be built without pinctrl support.
>
> This is a very late follow up v1 3 years ago [1]. The situation seems to be
> unchanged since then, and I have tried to incorporate the requested
> changes.

What is the verdict from the i.MX pin control maintainers on this?

I can merge this into the pin control tree for v6.11 but it'd be nice
to get an ACK from the maintainers first.

Yours,
Linus Walleij