RE: [PATCH v5 3/4] dt-bindings: pps: pps-gpio: document optional pinctrl states

[Farber, Eliav]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 07:36:05AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 02:46:40PM +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 10:30:50AM +0000, Eliav Farber wrote:
> > > +    minItems: 1
> > > +    items:
> > > +      - const: default
> > > +      - const: inactive
> >
> > One observation while testing the series, entirely a devicetree call:
> > dtschema derives maxItems from the items list, so this also caps
> > pinctrl-names at two and fixes the order --
>
> Yes, that's exactly what was said was needed here.
>
> >   "default", "inactive", "sleep"   ->  'is too long'
> >   "default", "sleep"               ->  'inactive' was expected
>
> Well, that's something different.
>
> items:
>   - const: default
>   - enum: [ inactive, sleep ]
>   - const: sleep
>
> The common pinctrl-names schema should require unique names so 'sleep'
> can't be repeated.

Thanks. Just so I pick the right thing for v6 -- do you want me to
change patch 3 to that form, or is the current

    minItems: 1
    items:
      - const: default
      - const: inactive

fine as-is?

This binding only defines "default" and "inactive"; the driver looks
both up by name and does not use a "sleep" state, so I had deliberately
capped the list at those two. Your snippet reads to me as how the common
pinctrl-names schema would accommodate a "sleep" state in general,
rather than something this binding needs -- but I would rather confirm
than guess.

If you would prefer the more permissive form so a board can also declare
"sleep", I will switch to it (with unique-name enforcement) in v6.
Otherwise I will keep the two-entry list.

> We don't even require pinctrl properties to be documented. They are
> implicitly allowed, but good to document what users (drivers)
> expect/require.

Right -- documenting the two names the driver actually consumes was the
intent here.

Thanks,
Eliav