RE: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: dts: realtek: Add GPIO support for RTD1625

[Yu-Chun Lin [林祐君]]

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 07:38:34PM +0800, Yu-Chun Lin wrote:
> > Add the GPIO node for the Realtek RTD1625 SoC.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor.lin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/kent.dtsi    | 43
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1501.dtsi |  8 +++++
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1861.dtsi |  8 +++++
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1920.dtsi |  8 +++++
> >  4 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> >
> 
> Why the DTS is in the middle? Drivers cannot depend on it. Please read
> submitting patches (both documents).
> 

I will move DTS to the end in v2.

> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/kent.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/kent.dtsi
> > index 8d4293cd4c03..746932c26724 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/kent.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/kent.dtsi
> > @@ -151,6 +151,39 @@ uart0: serial@7800 {
> >                               status = "disabled";
> >                       };
> >
> > +                     gpio: gpio@31100 {
> > +                             compatible = "realtek,rtd1625-iso-gpio";
> > +                             reg = <0x31100 0x398>,
> > +                                   <0x31000 0x100>;
> > +                             gpio-controller;
> > +                             gpio-ranges = <&isom_pinctrl 0 0 2>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 2 0 6>,
> > +                                           <&iso_pinctrl 8 0 4>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 12 6 2>,
> > +                                           <&main2_pinctrl 14 0
> 2>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 16 8 4>,
> > +                                           <&main2_pinctrl 20 2
> 3>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 23 12
> 3>,
> > +                                           <&iso_pinctrl 26 4 2>,
> > +                                           <&isom_pinctrl 28 2
> 2>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 30 15
> 6>,
> > +                                           <&main2_pinctrl 36 5
> 6>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 42 21
> 3>,
> > +                                           <&iso_pinctrl 45 6 6>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 51 24
> 1>,
> > +                                           <&iso_pinctrl 52 12
> 1>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 53 25
> 11>,
> > +                                           <&main2_pinctrl 64
> 11 28>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 92 36
> 2>,
> > +                                           <&iso_pinctrl 94 13
> 19>,
> > +                                           <&iso_pinctrl 128 32
> 4>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 132 38
> 13>,
> > +                                           <&iso_pinctrl 145 36
> 19>,
> > +                                           <&ve4_pinctrl 164 51
> 2>;
> > +                             #gpio-cells = <2>;
> > +                             status = "disabled";
> 
> Why is it disabled? What is missing in the SoC? Which resources are missing?
> 

Nothing is missing, so I will remove status = "disabled".

> > +                     };
> > +
> >                       iso_pinctrl: pinctrl@4e000 {
> >                               compatible =
> "realtek,rtd1625-iso-pinctrl";
> >                               reg = <0x4e000 0x1a4>; @@ -161,6
> +194,16
> > @@ main2_pinctrl: pinctrl@4f200 {
> >                               reg = <0x4f200 0x50>;
> >                       };
> >
> > +                     iso_m_gpio: gpio@89120 {
> > +                             compatible =
> "realtek,rtd1625-isom-gpio";
> > +                             reg = <0x89120 0x10>,
> > +                                   <0x89100 0x20>;
> > +                             gpio-controller;
> > +                             gpio-ranges = <&isom_pinctrl 0 0 4>;
> > +                             #gpio-cells = <2>;
> > +                             status = "disabled";
> > +                     };
> > +
> >                       isom_pinctrl: pinctrl@146200 {
> >                               compatible =
> "realtek,rtd1625-isom-pinctrl";
> >                               reg = <0x146200 0x34>; diff --git
> > a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1501.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1501.dtsi
> > index 65f7ede3df73..ae246a01f126 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1501.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd1501.dtsi
> > @@ -10,3 +10,11 @@
> >  &uart0 {
> >       status = "okay";
> >  };
> > +
> > +&gpio {
> 
> Why aren't you following DTS coding style? What style is applicable for
> Realtek?
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

I should sort them in alphabetical order. But after removing the status property,
the board-level node will be removed entirely.

Best regards,
Yu-Chun