Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] dt-bindings: mfd: Add Analog Devices ADP5585

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 11:23:12AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/07/2024 22:39, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  interrupts:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  vdd-supply: true
> > +
> > +  gpio-controller: true
> > +
> > +  '#gpio-cells':
> > +    const: 2
> > +
> > +  gpio-reserved-ranges: true
> > +
> > +  "#pwm-cells":
> > +    const: 3
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg
> > +  - gpio-controller
> > +  - "#gpio-cells"
> > +  - "#pwm-cells"
> > +
> > +allOf:
> > +  - if:
> > +      properties:
> > +        compatible:
> > +          contains:
> > +            const: adi,adp5585-01
> > +    then:
> > +      properties:
> > +        gpio-reserved-ranges: false
> > +    else:
> > +      properties:
> > +        gpio-reserved-ranges:
> > +          items:
> > +            - const: 5
> > +            - const: 1
> 
> Why reserved ranges are fixed? If they pins are *always* not accessible,
> then these are not GPIOs. This really looks incorrect.

It's model-dependent. The ADP5585 has 11 pins that can be used as GPIOs.
They are named GPIO 1 to GPIO 11 in the datasheet. The -01 variant uses
the pin associated with GPIO 6 for a different purpose, so GPIO 6 is not
usable. That maps to index 5 as GPIO numbers in DT bindings are 0-based.
I've decided to handle that as a reserved GPIO range to keep the GPIO 7
to GPIO 11 indices the same across all ADP5585 variants.

> Anyway, testing reports failures which *must* be addressed, one way or
> another.

Yes I'll fix that.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart