Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] arm64: dts: lx2160a: rename pinmux nodes for readability

[Frank Li <Frank.li@nxp.com>]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 05:20:20PM +0000, Josua Mayer wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On 3/17/26 02:36, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 01:05:14PM +0100, Josua Mayer wrote:
> >> LX2160A pinmux is done in groups by various length bitfields within
> >> configuration registers.
> >>
> >> Each group of pins is named in the reference manual after a primary
> >> function using soc-specific naming, e.g. IIC1 (for i2c0).
> >>
> >> Hardware block numbering starts from zero in device-tree but one in the
> >> reference manual.
> >>
> >> Rename the already defined pinmux nodes originally added for changing
> >> i2c pins between i2c and gpio functions reflecting the reference manual
> >> name (IIC) in the node name, and the device-tree name (i2c, gpio) in the
> >> label.
> >>
> >> This makes it more clear to future developers that these nodes do in

Needn't 'this' just

Make it more ...

> >> fact configure a group of pins, and helps with cross-referencing
> >> documentation.
> >>
> >> No functional change intended.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 8a1365c7bbc1 ("arm64: dts: lx2160a: add pinmux and i2c gpio to support bus recovery")
> >> Signed-off-by: Josua Mayer <josua@solid-run.com>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a.dtsi | 64 +++++++++++++-------------
> >>   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a.dtsi
> >> index 41c9b4253f4a5..28500e8873909 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a.dtsi
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a.dtsi
> >> @@ -750,8 +750,8 @@ i2c0: i2c@2000000 {
> >>   			clocks = <&clockgen QORIQ_CLK_PLATFORM_PLL
> >>   					    QORIQ_CLK_PLL_DIV(16)>;
> >>   			pinctrl-names = "default", "gpio";
> >> -			pinctrl-0 = <&i2c0_scl>;
> >> -			pinctrl-1 = <&i2c0_scl_gpio>;
> >> +			pinctrl-0 = <&i2c0_pins>;
> >> +			pinctrl-1 = <&gpio0_3_2_pins>;
> > why need change label name here. It should scl, why need change to pins?
>
> Readability.
>
> It should definitely not be called "scl" precisely because the node
> previously labeled i2c0_scl actually configures both sda and scl together.

This need mention in commit message about why rename.

Frank
>
> And plain "&i2c0" is already taken, so I added _pins.
>
> For the gpios I also changed the label because we are in SoC dtsi,
> and gpios are not specific to sda or scl function.
>
> Further including the gpio numbers in the label helps spotting mistakes.
>
> This patch-set is a story explaining chapter by chapter why initially
> I just reverted the original commit.
>
> sincerely
> Josua Mayer