Merge tag 'pinctrl-v7.3-1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrlgrafted

Pull pin control updates from Linus Walleij:
 "Core changes:

   - Use the non-blocking mux_state_try_select() in the generic MUX pin
     control back-end

   - Free pin maps on pinctrl_generic_to_map() failure in the core
     helpers

  New hardware pin control:

   - Qualcomm Maili TLMM SoC, PMG1110 PMIC, and Eliza LPASS LPI TLMM SoC
     (this is for the low power audio, LPASS = Low Power Audio SubSystem
     portions)

   - Upboard support on top of the Intel pin controller

   - Apple T6030 and T6031 support (just compatible strings)

   - Samsung Exynos 8855 SoC

   - Mediatek MT6858 SoC

   - Rockchip RK3308B and RV1106 SoCs

   - Airoha EN7523 and AN7563 SoCs

  Improvements:

   - Qualcomm TLMM GPIOs are unconditionally marked as wakeup capable

   - Qualcomm improvements on top of the Qualcomm PDC (power domain
     controller) irqchip improvements from tglx:s tree

   - Qualcomm IPQ806x and IPQ9650 non-urgent pin grop fixups

   - The NPCM8xx driver has been put into shape fixing many pin and
     group definitions

   - Some non-urgent Tegra 264 pin assignments are fixed up

   - Some non-urgent fixups to Airoha AN7581 and AN7583 registers and
     pin assignments, missing features etc"

* tag 'pinctrl-v7.3-1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl: (130 commits)
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: Convert TI DA850 pupd to DT schema
  pinctrl: meson: sync some modify from A4
  pinctrl: meson: a4: Add input enable pin configuration
  pinctrl: realtek: rtd1625: remove unused group name spdif_sel
  pinctrl: realtek: rtd1625: fix base_bit for VE4 GPIO 13
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: microchip,pic32mzda-pinctrl: Convert to DT schema
  Revert "Merge branch 'ib-rsk7204' into devel"
  pinctrl: rockchip: Add RV1106 pinctrl support
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: rockchip: Add RV1106 compatible
  pinctrl: rockchip: Decode drive strength in the get function
  pinctrl: fix PINCTRL_GENERIC_MUX not always being selectable
  pinctrl: airoha: add support of an7563 SoC
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: airoha: add support of an7563 pin controller
  pinctrl: airoha: try to find chip scu node by phandle first
  pinctrl: airoha: add support of en7523 SoC
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: airoha: add support of en7523 pin controller
  pinctrl: airoha: an7583: add support for olt pinmux
  pinctrl: airoha: an7583: add support for pon_alt pinmux
  pinctrl: airoha: an7583: add support for npu_uart pinmux
  dt-bindings: pinctrl: airoha: an7583: add missed features
  ...

1 files changed, 116 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..aad2caad9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+============================================
+Kernel Guidelines for Tool-Generated Content
+============================================
+
+Purpose
+=======
+
+Kernel contributors have been using tooling to generate contributions
+for a long time. These tools can increase the volume of contributions.
+At the same time, reviewer and maintainer bandwidth is a scarce
+resource. Understanding which portions of a contribution come from
+humans versus tools is helpful to maintain those resources and keep
+kernel development healthy.
+
+The goal here is to clarify community expectations around tools. This
+lets everyone become more productive while also maintaining high
+degrees of trust between submitters and reviewers.
+
+Out of Scope
+============
+
+These guidelines do not apply to tools that make trivial tweaks to
+preexisting content. Nor do they pertain to tooling that helps with
+menial tasks. Some examples:
+
+ - Spelling and grammar fix ups, like rephrasing to imperative voice
+ - Typing aids like identifier completion, common boilerplate or
+   trivial pattern completion
+ - Purely mechanical transformations like variable renaming
+ - Reformatting, like running Lindent, ``clang-format`` or
+   ``rust-fmt``
+
+Even whenever your tool use is out of scope, you should still always
+consider if it would help reviewing your contribution if the reviewer
+knows about the tool that you used.
+
+In Scope
+========
+
+These guidelines apply when a meaningful amount of content in a kernel
+contribution was not written by a person in the Signed-off-by chain,
+but was instead created by a tool.
+
+Detection of a problem and testing the fix for it is also part of the
+development process; if a tool was used to find a problem addressed by
+a change, that should be noted in the changelog. This not only gives
+credit where it is due, it also helps fellow developers find out about
+these tools.
+
+Some examples:
+ - Any tool-suggested fix such as ``checkpatch.pl --fix``
+ - Coccinelle scripts
+ - A chatbot generated a new function in your patch to sort list entries.
+ - A .c file in the patch was originally generated by a coding
+   assistant but cleaned up by hand.
+ - The changelog was generated by handing the patch to a generative AI
+   tool and asking it to write the changelog.
+ - The changelog was translated from another language.
+
+If in doubt, choose transparency and assume these guidelines apply to
+your contribution.
+
+Guidelines
+==========
+
+First, read the Developer's Certificate of Origin:
+Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Its rules are simple
+and have been in place for a long time. They have covered many
+tool-generated contributions. Ensure that you understand your entire
+submission and are prepared to respond to review comments.
+
+Second, when making a contribution, be transparent about the origin of
+content in cover letters and changelogs. You can be more transparent
+by adding information like this:
+
+ - What tools were used?
+ - The input to the tools you used, like the Coccinelle source script.
+ - If code was largely generated from a single or short set of
+   prompts, include those prompts. For longer sessions, include a
+   summary of the prompts and the nature of resulting assistance.
+ - Which portions of the content were affected by that tool?
+ - How is the submission tested and what tools were used to test the
+   fix?
+
+As with all contributions, individual maintainers have discretion to
+choose how they handle the contribution. For example, they might:
+
+ - Treat it just like any other contribution.
+ - Reject it outright.
+ - Treat the contribution specially, for example, asking for extra
+   testing, reviewing with extra scrutiny, or reviewing at a lower
+   priority than human-generated content.
+ - Ask for some other special steps, like asking the contributor to
+   elaborate on how the tool or model was trained.
+ - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the contribution
+   so that the maintainer can be assured that the submitter fully
+   understands how the code works.
+ - Suggest a better prompt instead of suggesting specific code changes.
+
+If tools permit you to generate a contribution automatically, expect
+additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated.
+
+As with the output of any tooling, the result may be incorrect or
+inappropriate. You are expected to understand and to be able to defend
+everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then do not submit
+the resulting changes.
+
+If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series
+without detailed review.
+
+References
+==========
+
+For specific guidelines on AI coding assistants, see:
+
+* Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst