[PATCH V2 linux-pinctrl 1/2] Revert "dt-bindings: pinctrl: bcm4708-pinmux: rework binding to use syscon"

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 08.10.2021 21:48, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 17:39:38 +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal at milecki.pl>
>>
>> This reverts commit 2ae80900f239484069569380e1fc4340fd6e0089.
>>
>> My rework was unneeded & wrong. It replaced a clear & correct "reg"
>> property usage with a custom "offset" one.
>>
>> Back then I didn't understand how to properly handle CRU block binding.
>> I heard / read about syscon and tried to use it in a totally invalid
>> way. That change also missed Rob's review (obviously).
>>
>> Northstar's pin controller is a simple consistent hardware block that
>> can be cleanly mapped using a 0x24 long reg space.
>>
>> Since the rework commit there wasn't any follow up modifying in-kernel
>> DTS files to use the new binding. Broadcom also isn't known to use that
>> bugged binding. There is close to zero chance this revert may actually
>> cause problems / regressions.
>>
>> This commit is a simple revert. Example binding may (should) be updated
>> / cleaned up but that can be handled separately.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal at milecki.pl>
>> ---
>> V2: Update brcm,cru.yaml to avoid new yamllint warnings/errors
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/brcm,cru.yaml     | 11 +++++----
>>   .../bindings/pinctrl/brcm,ns-pinmux.yaml      | 23 +++++++++++--------
>>   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
> on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
> 
> yamllint warnings/errors:
> 
> dtschema/dtc warnings/errors:
> /builds/robherring/linux-dt-review/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/brcm,ns-pinmux.example.dt.yaml: cru at 1800c100: $nodename:0: 'cru at 1800c100' does not match '^([a-z][a-z0-9\\-]+-bus|bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$'
> 	From schema: /usr/local/lib/python3.8/dist-packages/dtschema/schemas/simple-bus.yaml

It's warning we already have and not something introduced by this
revert.

As a revert this commit should introduce as little non-revert changes
as possible. I'm planning to improve that example later in a separated
commit.

Can you take a look at this commit despite your bot warning, please?