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

[Marek Vasut]

On 3/26/25 2:52 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 02/19] pinctrl: nxp: add a pin controller driver
>> based on SCMI pin control protocol
>>
>> On 3/25/25 9:06 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> 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 .
>>>
>>> This ID is generic ID, not i.MX specific.
>>>
>>> i.MX SCMI pinctrl follows ARM SCMI spec, but i.MX pinctrl bindings
>> are
>>> different compared with ARM SCMI generic pinconf bindings, so we
>> need
>>> a separate driver for i.MX.
>> But then, why is it using the same protocol ID ?
> 
> i.MX System Manager FW pinctrl follows ARM SCMI spec,
> the ID value is 0x19.
> 
> 
> If you look at linux kernel driver
> 
> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-scmi.c
> drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-scmi-imx.c

Is the second driver upstream at all ? I don't see it in linux-next ?

> Both use same ID 0x19.
> 
> It is fine to use below, if it is fine to you.
> SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_PINCTRL_IMX = 0x19.
How does the kernel discern which driver it should use to communicate 
with the SCMI provider if both drivers are compiled into the kernel ?