[PATCH v5 0/2] riscv: sophgo: Add pinctrl support for CV1800 series SoC

[Inochi Amaoto]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 08:11:15PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 06:25:49AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 05:13:43PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 06:24:34AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 03:41:10PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 06:38:40AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > > > > Add basic pinctrl driver for Sophgo CV1800 series SoCs.
> > > > > > This patch series aims to replace the previous patch from Jisheng [1].
> > > > > > Since the pinctrl of cv1800 has nested mux and its pin definination
> > > > > > is discrete, it is not suitable to use "pinctrl-single" to cover the
> > > > > > pinctrl device.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This patch require another patch [2] that provides standard attribute
> > > > > > "input-schmitt-microvolt"
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The v4 version is from [3]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which version of this ended up in linux-next? I see a link to v4 in
> > > > > what's been applied, but this v5 was sent before that code was
> > > > > committed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Either way, what's been applied and what's here produce warnings:
> > > > > cv1812h.dtsi:19.28-24.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /soc/pinctrl at 3008000: simple-bus unit address format error, expected "3001000"
> > > > > cv1800b.dtsi:18.28-23.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /soc/pinctrl at 3008000: simple-bus unit address format error, expected "3001000"
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's just a copy-paste error I would imagine, but please send a fix.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, it is like some copy-paste error, I will fix it.
> > > 
> > > I'd rather you had sent some follow-up patches, than rebase your tree at
> > > this point in the cycle. I assume you hadn't yet sent that stuff in a PR
> > > to Arnd?
> > > 
> > Yes, the pinctrl dts needs binding header, which is taken by Linus.
> > So we hadn't sent them. This is why I sent a new version to fix this.
> 
> Oh, I'm surprised that you didn't get a shared branch from him for that
> to be honest.

He did provide a shared branch, but I am not sure the right way to use 
it. He said it is used for SoC tree to pull it. So I think it is just 
used as dependency. Is it OK to just mention it in the PR and add the 
pinctrl dts? Or need some other git tags to tell the dependency?

Regards,
Inochi