Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] pinctrl: upboard: add device id INTC1055 based UP boards support

[GaryWang]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 5:21 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 10:49 AM Thomas Richard
> <thomas.richard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 7/7/26 5:55 PM, GaryWang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 7:50 PM Thomas Richard
> > > <thomas.richard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> On 7/6/26 12:36 PM, Gary Wang wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > >> I tested the IOs:
> > >> - pwm0 does not work.
> > > you have to use our pwm kernel module for pwm test, I'll provide later.
> >
> > Ack
>
> Can you, folks, elaborate why this is a requirement and what exactly
> is not working?
>
pwm resource IO address is not reported correctly, I fixed it in pwm
kernel modules
for testing, we set the pin mode to the correct function in this patch.

> > >> - uart1 partially works: TX is okay, but loopback doesn't work. Signal
> > >> is bad when I add a loopback. Looks like pinctrl misconfig on SoC side.
> > > uart1 tested ok on our side, if you loop TX/RX do not forget to turn off
> > > hardware flow control. and we have executed cmd as below to make sure
> > > direction is set all right.
> > > echo "uart1_grp uart1" >
> > > /sys/kernel/debug/pinctrl/upboard-pinctrl/pinmux-select
> >
> > I did some tests with/without flow control using linux-serial-test tool.
>
> I'm sorry it's not so clear to me, does it mean the serial interface
> is (still) not properly working or you have done that pinmux
> configuration and everything becomes fine (as Tested-by tag suggests)?
>
checking with Thomas, but testing ok on our side.
> ...
>
> > >> - for SPI, MOSI and CLK are okay, but not CS.
> > > Do you have enabled spi in BIOS HAT configuration?
> > > CS0 should be ok, it's SOC defined, CS1 is optional, users can activate low by
> > > himself before read/write, actually all gpio can be manually used as CS pin.
> >
> > I applied an ACPI overlay. I'll test it again.
>
> I suppose this part is not as critical and I just wonder what the test
> results are.
>
testing ok on our side, waiting for Thomas to clarify.
> ...
>
> > Anyway these are not related to this patch series.
> > Thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > Tested-by: Thomas Richard <thomas.richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> So, after all, are they all good to go?
need Thomas verify, I thought only uart has problem in his testing.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko