[PATCH v8 02/19] pinctrl: nxp: add a pin controller driver based on SCMI pin control protocol

[Marek Vasut]

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 .