From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: samsung: Calculate GPIO base for pinctrl_add_gpio_range Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:13:59 +0900 Message-ID: References: <20170223172313.GF2742@localhost.localdomain> <1487872490-27643-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1487872490-27643-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Charles Keepax Cc: "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sylwester Nawrocki , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel , patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Hi Charles, 2017-02-24 2:54 GMT+09:00 Charles Keepax : > 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. Please see my comment inline. > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax > --- > > Ok I might have spoken to soon there looks like there is a simple > way to fix this up, at least in this case. It would be much more > of an issue if the driver allocated its GPIO base dynamically. > > Thanks, > Charles > > drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c > index ddc8d6b..864d8b4d 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; If we are not reading the base from the GPIO bank anymore, maybe it could make sense to actually make samsung_gpiolib_register() use bank->grange.base as gc->base? This way we would avoid explicitly numbering two times. Best regards, Tomasz