On 3/21/25 8:15 AM, Alice Guo (OSS) wrote:
[...]
+static int imx_scmi_pinctrl_probe(struct udevice *dev)
+{
+ struct imx_scmi_pinctrl_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev);
+
+ priv->daisy_offset = is_imx93() ? DAISY_OFFSET_IMX93 :
DAISY_OFFSET_IMX95;
+
+ return devm_scmi_of_get_channel(dev);
+}
+
+static int imx_scmi_pinctrl_bind(struct udevice *dev)
+{
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMX95))
+ return 0;
Why does this driver support iMX93 , but it is explicitly not going to
bind on iMX93 ?
In case the MX93 support is going to be added, you probably need
something like:
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMX95) && is_imx95())
return 0;
Because IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMX95) does not automatically imply that this
code is started on MX95 , that is when is_imx95() comes into play and
does runtime check for MX95 .
+ return -ENODEV;
+}
+
+U_BOOT_DRIVER(scmi_pinctrl_imx) = {
+ .name = "scmi_pinctrl_imx",
+ .id = UCLASS_PINCTRL,
+ .bind = imx_scmi_pinctrl_bind,
+ .probe = imx_scmi_pinctrl_probe,
+ .priv_auto = sizeof(struct imx_scmi_pinctrl_priv),
+ .ops = &imx_scmi_pinctrl_ops,
+ .flags = DM_FLAG_PRE_RELOC,
+};
diff --git a/include/scmi_protocols.h b/include/scmi_protocols.h
index 7abb2a6f36b..279ebbad440 100644
--- a/include/scmi_protocols.h
+++ b/include/scmi_protocols.h
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ enum scmi_std_protocol {
SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_SENSOR = 0x15,
SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_RESET_DOMAIN = 0x16,
SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_VOLTAGE_DOMAIN = 0x17,
+ SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_PINCTRL = 0x19,
If this is the IMX specific pinctrl protocol, please make sure to name
it accordingly , SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_PINCTRL_IMX or something .
