| Message ID | 1488301475-10804-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Hi Charles, 2017-03-01 2:04 GMT+09:00 Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>: > As the pinctrl is now added before the GPIOs are registered we need to > manually calculate what the GPIO base will be, otherwise the base for > each gpio_range will be set to zero. Fortunately the driver > already assigns a GPIO base, in samsung_gpiolib_register, and uses the > same calculation it does for the pin_base. Meaning the two will always > be the same and allowing us to reuse the pinbase and avoid the issue. Sorry, I didn't notice before and I don't see the offending patch in , but you should add Fixes: XXXXXXXXXXXX ("pinctrl: Patch subject") if you intend to submit this patch separately. Otherwise, maybe this can be just squashed? > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> > --- > > Changes since v1: > - Use grange.base in samsung_gpiolib_register to make it more > clear the two are related in the driver. Other than the above: Acked-by: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:20:11PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Charles, > > 2017-03-01 2:04 GMT+09:00 Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>: > > As the pinctrl is now added before the GPIOs are registered we need to > > manually calculate what the GPIO base will be, otherwise the base for > > each gpio_range will be set to zero. Fortunately the driver > > already assigns a GPIO base, in samsung_gpiolib_register, and uses the > > same calculation it does for the pin_base. Meaning the two will always > > be the same and allowing us to reuse the pinbase and avoid the issue. > > Sorry, I didn't notice before and I don't see the offending patch in , > but you should add > > Fixes: XXXXXXXXXXXX ("pinctrl: Patch subject") > > if you intend to submit this patch separately. Otherwise, maybe this > can be just squashed? > Yeah apologies for that as the original patch hasn't showed up in the tree yet I couldn't pull a commit ID to add the fixes tag. Squashing it in is probably the best way to go. Thanks, Charles -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:49:09PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:20:11PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > > > 2017-03-01 2:04 GMT+09:00 Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>: > > > As the pinctrl is now added before the GPIOs are registered we need to > > > manually calculate what the GPIO base will be, otherwise the base for > > > each gpio_range will be set to zero. Fortunately the driver > > > already assigns a GPIO base, in samsung_gpiolib_register, and uses the > > > same calculation it does for the pin_base. Meaning the two will always > > > be the same and allowing us to reuse the pinbase and avoid the issue. > > > > Sorry, I didn't notice before and I don't see the offending patch in , > > but you should add > > > > Fixes: XXXXXXXXXXXX ("pinctrl: Patch subject") > > > > if you intend to submit this patch separately. Otherwise, maybe this > > can be just squashed? > > > > Yeah apologies for that as the original patch hasn't showed up in > the tree yet I couldn't pull a commit ID to add the fixes tag. > Squashing it in is probably the best way to go. Hi Charles, Thanks for the work. This is a follow up of: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9577147/ Right? None of these two were applied so can you squash them, rebase, retest and send again? Best regards, Krzysztof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 08:39:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:49:09PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:20:11PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > Hi Charles, > > > > > > 2017-03-01 2:04 GMT+09:00 Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>: > > > > As the pinctrl is now added before the GPIOs are registered we need to > > > > manually calculate what the GPIO base will be, otherwise the base for > > > > each gpio_range will be set to zero. Fortunately the driver > > > > already assigns a GPIO base, in samsung_gpiolib_register, and uses the > > > > same calculation it does for the pin_base. Meaning the two will always > > > > be the same and allowing us to reuse the pinbase and avoid the issue. > > > > > > Sorry, I didn't notice before and I don't see the offending patch in , > > > but you should add > > > > > > Fixes: XXXXXXXXXXXX ("pinctrl: Patch subject") > > > > > > if you intend to submit this patch separately. Otherwise, maybe this > > > can be just squashed? > > > > > > > Yeah apologies for that as the original patch hasn't showed up in > > the tree yet I couldn't pull a commit ID to add the fixes tag. > > Squashing it in is probably the best way to go. > > Hi Charles, > > Thanks for the work. > > This is a follow up of: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9577147/ > Right? > > None of these two were applied so can you squash them, rebase, retest > and send again? > Yeah no problem should be able to resend later today hopefully. Thanks, Charles -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c index ddc8d6b..27d5157 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c @@ -882,7 +882,7 @@ static int samsung_pinctrl_register(struct platform_device *pdev, pin_bank->grange.id = bank; pin_bank->grange.pin_base = drvdata->pin_base + pin_bank->pin_base; - pin_bank->grange.base = pin_bank->gpio_chip.base; + pin_bank->grange.base = pin_bank->grange.pin_base; pin_bank->grange.npins = pin_bank->gpio_chip.ngpio; pin_bank->grange.gc = &pin_bank->gpio_chip; pinctrl_add_gpio_range(drvdata->pctl_dev, &pin_bank->grange); @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ static int samsung_gpiolib_register(struct platform_device *pdev, bank->gpio_chip = samsung_gpiolib_chip; gc = &bank->gpio_chip; - gc->base = drvdata->pin_base + bank->pin_base; + gc->base = bank->grange.base; gc->ngpio = bank->nr_pins; gc->parent = &pdev->dev; gc->of_node = bank->of_node;
As the pinctrl is now added before the GPIOs are registered we need to manually calculate what the GPIO base will be, otherwise the base for each gpio_range will be set to zero. Fortunately the driver already assigns a GPIO base, in samsung_gpiolib_register, and uses the same calculation it does for the pin_base. Meaning the two will always be the same and allowing us to reuse the pinbase and avoid the issue. Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> --- Changes since v1: - Use grange.base in samsung_gpiolib_register to make it more clear the two are related in the driver. Thanks, Charles drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)