> >>> We have this binding file in both include/dt-bindings/ and
> >>> dts/upstream/include/dt-bindings. These files are identical save for the
> >>> fact that we do not have commit adb2424d0d05 ("dt-bindings: clock: add
> >>> clock definitions for Ralink SoCs") from the kernel applied. However,
> >>> this change is rather important and should not have been omitted here
> >>> most likely. Remove our local copy to get in sync with upstream now.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> Cc: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hris...@linaro.org>
> >>> Cc: Mihai Sain <mihai.s...@microchip.com>
> >>>
> >>> The full kernel commit log is at
> >>>
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?
> id=0b3292852863215825f88905b9dbafc3101e1d7e
> >>> and so this sounds very important. Please let me know if this should go
> >>> in master for v2025.07 (or Eugen, please pick it and send a PR). Thanks!
> >>
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> I do not see the connection with the Ralink SoCs. Maybe wrong commit
> >> referenced ?
> >
> > Erm, the kernel link for me is "pinctrl: at91: Enable slewrate by
> > default on SAM9X60".
>
> The link is good, I ment the commit message above.
> >
> >> Anyway, on the slewrate bits, as of today we have DIS==0 and ENA==1 and
> >> the driver treats them the same way. Hence DTs with DIS flag will have
> >> the bit erased in the register
> >>
> >> With the kernel bindings file, DIS==1 and ENA==0, but the driver still
> >> considers DIS==0 and ENA==1 , so the DTs that have DIS as flags will get
> >> the bit written in the register.
> >>
> >> If we also port the driver patch then the driver will also consider
> >> DIS==1 and ENA==0 , so the DTs with DIS flag will get the bit written in
> >> the register.
> >>
> >> So there is an important change by changing the bits values, as the
> >> register eventually ends up with a different value.
> >> The driver patch apparently just interprets the DIS/ENA bits
> >> differently, but the end result is the same
> >>
> >> Please correct me if my logic is wrong.
> >>
> >> I would also believe testing on the sam9x60 would be required for the
> >> slew rate change. From what I remember back then, slew rate change was
> >> not needed in Uboot, but I might be wrong.
> >
> > So, there's I guess two parts to all of this. First, yes it would be
> > good to test this change on real hardware and make sure things work as
> > expected. Second, yes, it looks like we need to make the parallel change
> > in drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c (to match what the kernel did at the
> > time too) and we can't just remove the old binding file we need to
> > update them at the same time (since long term we need to remove all of
> > the old kernel dts stuff). The final thing is that it really is
> > important to get them in sync as it's valid to pass our device tree to
> > the kernel to use. Can you take care of the changes here? I don't have
> > hardware to test on, thanks.
>
> I do not have any sam9x60 based board . This would have to be tested by
> Mihai or someone from Microchip team.
>
> So your patch would be good, then another patch for the pinctrl driver
> to port the changes from Linux . This can be done by Mihai or the team,
> if they want, otherwise I will do it, but it has to be tested anyway by
> someone . Especially the hardware with slew rates, like the SD card.
Yes.
I can test the modifications on sam9x60 and sam9x7 boards, since they use the
same pin controller.
This patch should be ported ?
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/0b3292852863215825f88905b9dbafc3101e1d7e
Regards,
Mihai
>
> Eugen
>
> >
