[PATCH v7 00/16] pinctrl: introduce the concept of a GPIO pin function category

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 12:18:18AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 1:59 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl at bgdev.pl> wrote:
> 
> > We have many Qualcomm SoCs (and I can imagine it's a common pattern in
> > other platforms as well) where we mux a pin to "gpio" function using the
> > `pinctrl-X` property in order to configure bias or drive-strength and
> > then access it using the gpiod API. This makes it impossible to mark the
> > pin controller module as "strict".
> >
> > This series proposes to introduce a concept of a sub-category of
> > pinfunctions: GPIO functions where the above is not true and the pin
> > muxed as a GPIO can still be accessed via the GPIO consumer API even for
> > strict pinmuxers.
> 
> This is what I want for pin control, and fixes an ages old issue
> that pin control has no intrinsic awareness of if a pin is muxed
> to a function providing GPIO.
> So patches applied!

No objections, let's move on.

> Any remaining code nitpicks can be fixed in-tree, I need this
> to be able to apply the much desired Broadcom STB driver,
> so this needs to go into -next now for cooking.
> 
> I also want to strictify some drivers using this, bringing GPIO
> function awareness into them, which is a good thing!

Well said!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko