[PATCH 1/5] gpio: davinci: Remove unused member of davinci_gpio_controller

[PATCH 1/5] gpio: davinci: Remove unused member of davinci_gpio_controller

[Andrew F. Davis]

This was added as part of the patch in the fixes below, but was
not needed or used, remove this here.

Fixes: 8e11047b8f3c ("gpio: davinci: Add support for multiple GPIO controllers")
Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
---
 include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
index 57a5a35e0073..b8e4957e7568 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
@@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ struct davinci_gpio_controller {
 	void __iomem		*regs[MAX_REGS_BANKS];
 	int			gpio_unbanked;
 	int			irqs[MAX_INT_PER_BANK];
-	unsigned int		base;
 };
 
 /*
-- 
2.18.0

[PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Andrew F. Davis]

Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.

We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
any cleanup after this change.

Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c | 22 ++++------------------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
index a5ece8ea79bc..14d1729927d3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
@@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ struct davinci_gpio_regs {
 typedef struct irq_chip *(*gpio_get_irq_chip_cb_t)(unsigned int irq);
 
 #define BINTEN	0x8 /* GPIO Interrupt Per-Bank Enable Register */
-#define MAX_LABEL_SIZE 20
 
 static void __iomem *gpio_base;
 static unsigned int offset_array[5] = {0x10, 0x38, 0x60, 0x88, 0xb0};
@@ -166,14 +165,12 @@ davinci_gpio_get_pdata(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
-	static int ctrl_num, bank_base;
 	int gpio, bank, i, ret = 0;
 	unsigned int ngpio, nbank, nirq;
 	struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips;
 	struct davinci_gpio_platform_data *pdata;
 	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
 	struct resource *res;
-	char label[MAX_LABEL_SIZE];
 
 	pdata = davinci_gpio_get_pdata(pdev);
 	if (!pdata) {
@@ -228,10 +225,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		}
 	}
 
-	snprintf(label, MAX_LABEL_SIZE, "davinci_gpio.%d", ctrl_num++);
-	chips->chip.label = devm_kstrdup(dev, label, GFP_KERNEL);
-		if (!chips->chip.label)
-			return -ENOMEM;
+	chips->chip.label = dev_name(dev);
 
 	chips->chip.direction_input = davinci_direction_in;
 	chips->chip.get = davinci_gpio_get;
@@ -239,7 +233,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	chips->chip.set = davinci_gpio_set;
 
 	chips->chip.ngpio = ngpio;
-	chips->chip.base = bank_base;
+	chips->chip.base = -1;
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO
 	chips->chip.of_gpio_n_cells = 2;
@@ -252,28 +246,20 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	}
 #endif
 	spin_lock_init(&chips->lock);
-	bank_base += ngpio;
 
 	for (gpio = 0, bank = 0; gpio < ngpio; gpio += 32, bank++)
 		chips->regs[bank] = gpio_base + offset_array[bank];
 
 	ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(dev, &chips->chip, chips);
 	if (ret)
-		goto err;
+		return ret;
 
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chips);
 	ret = davinci_gpio_irq_setup(pdev);
 	if (ret)
-		goto err;
+		return ret;
 
 	return 0;
-
-err:
-	/* Revert the static variable increments */
-	ctrl_num--;
-	bank_base -= ngpio;
-
-	return ret;
 }
 
 /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
-- 
2.18.0

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Keerthy]

On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
> selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
> does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.
> 
> We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
> patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
> any cleanup after this change.

echo 28 > /sys/class/gpio/export
/ # echo 28 > /sys/class/gpi[   12.839205] export_store: invalid GPIO 28
o/export
echo 2 > /sys/class/gp[   22.165728] export_store: invalid GPIO 2
io/export
/ # echo 1 > /sys/class/gp[   25.961392] export_store: invalid GPIO 1
io/export
/ # echo 3 > /sys/class/gp[   29.981918] export_store: invalid GPIO 3
io/export

Export fails with this patch. I am testing this on keystone-k2g-evm.


> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c | 22 ++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> index a5ece8ea79bc..14d1729927d3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ struct davinci_gpio_regs {
>  typedef struct irq_chip *(*gpio_get_irq_chip_cb_t)(unsigned int irq);
>  
>  #define BINTEN	0x8 /* GPIO Interrupt Per-Bank Enable Register */
> -#define MAX_LABEL_SIZE 20
>  
>  static void __iomem *gpio_base;
>  static unsigned int offset_array[5] = {0x10, 0x38, 0x60, 0x88, 0xb0};
> @@ -166,14 +165,12 @@ davinci_gpio_get_pdata(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> -	static int ctrl_num, bank_base;
>  	int gpio, bank, i, ret = 0;
>  	unsigned int ngpio, nbank, nirq;
>  	struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips;
>  	struct davinci_gpio_platform_data *pdata;
>  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>  	struct resource *res;
> -	char label[MAX_LABEL_SIZE];
>  
>  	pdata = davinci_gpio_get_pdata(pdev);
>  	if (!pdata) {
> @@ -228,10 +225,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	snprintf(label, MAX_LABEL_SIZE, "davinci_gpio.%d", ctrl_num++);
> -	chips->chip.label = devm_kstrdup(dev, label, GFP_KERNEL);
> -		if (!chips->chip.label)
> -			return -ENOMEM;
> +	chips->chip.label = dev_name(dev);
>  
>  	chips->chip.direction_input = davinci_direction_in;
>  	chips->chip.get = davinci_gpio_get;
> @@ -239,7 +233,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	chips->chip.set = davinci_gpio_set;
>  
>  	chips->chip.ngpio = ngpio;
> -	chips->chip.base = bank_base;
> +	chips->chip.base = -1;
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO
>  	chips->chip.of_gpio_n_cells = 2;
> @@ -252,28 +246,20 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	}
>  #endif
>  	spin_lock_init(&chips->lock);
> -	bank_base += ngpio;
>  
>  	for (gpio = 0, bank = 0; gpio < ngpio; gpio += 32, bank++)
>  		chips->regs[bank] = gpio_base + offset_array[bank];
>  
>  	ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(dev, &chips->chip, chips);
>  	if (ret)
> -		goto err;
> +		return ret;
>  
>  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, chips);
>  	ret = davinci_gpio_irq_setup(pdev);
>  	if (ret)
> -		goto err;
> +		return ret;
>  
>  	return 0;
> -
> -err:
> -	/* Revert the static variable increments */
> -	ctrl_num--;
> -	bank_base -= ngpio;
> -
> -	return ret;
>  }
>  
>  /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 AM Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> > Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
> > selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
> > does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.
> >
> > We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
> > patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
> > any cleanup after this change.
>
> echo 28 > /sys/class/gpio/export
> / # echo 28 > /sys/class/gpi[   12.839205] export_store: invalid GPIO 28
> o/export
> echo 2 > /sys/class/gp[   22.165728] export_store: invalid GPIO 2
> io/export
> / # echo 1 > /sys/class/gp[   25.961392] export_store: invalid GPIO 1
> io/export
> / # echo 3 > /sys/class/gp[   29.981918] export_store: invalid GPIO 3
> io/export
>
> Export fails with this patch. I am testing this on keystone-k2g-evm.

I think the GPIO got a new number didn't it?

Did you check the gpio file in debugfs to see which number
it got.

This is sadly the global numberspace that we are tying to
get rid of (new apps/scripts should use the chardev).

Are there applications that rely on the sysfs ABI on DaVinci?

In that case base needs to be prerseved.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Keerthy]

On Wednesday 05 September 2018 04:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 AM Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>> Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
>>> selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
>>> does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.
>>>
>>> We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
>>> patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
>>> any cleanup after this change.
>>
>> echo 28 > /sys/class/gpio/export
>> / # echo 28 > /sys/class/gpi[   12.839205] export_store: invalid GPIO 28
>> o/export
>> echo 2 > /sys/class/gp[   22.165728] export_store: invalid GPIO 2
>> io/export
>> / # echo 1 > /sys/class/gp[   25.961392] export_store: invalid GPIO 1
>> io/export
>> / # echo 3 > /sys/class/gp[   29.981918] export_store: invalid GPIO 3
>> io/export
>>
>> Export fails with this patch. I am testing this on keystone-k2g-evm.
> 
> I think the GPIO got a new number didn't it?
> 
> Did you check the gpio file in debugfs to see which number
> it got.

Okay now its numbered differently:

cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
144

cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
68

So gpio bank2 and bank1 have different gpio numbers. Is that acceptable?

> 
> This is sadly the global numberspace that we are tying to
> get rid of (new apps/scripts should use the chardev).
> 
> Are there applications that rely on the sysfs ABI on DaVinci?
> 
> In that case base needs to be prerseved.
> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Grygorii Strashko]

On 09/06/2018 09:16 AM, Keerthy wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 05 September 2018 04:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 AM Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>>> Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
>>>> selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
>>>> does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.
>>>>
>>>> We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
>>>> patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
>>>> any cleanup after this change.
>>>
>>> echo 28 > /sys/class/gpio/export
>>> / # echo 28 > /sys/class/gpi[   12.839205] export_store: invalid GPIO 28
>>> o/export
>>> echo 2 > /sys/class/gp[   22.165728] export_store: invalid GPIO 2
>>> io/export
>>> / # echo 1 > /sys/class/gp[   25.961392] export_store: invalid GPIO 1
>>> io/export
>>> / # echo 3 > /sys/class/gp[   29.981918] export_store: invalid GPIO 3
>>> io/export
>>>
>>> Export fails with this patch. I am testing this on keystone-k2g-evm.
>>
>> I think the GPIO got a new number didn't it?
>>
>> Did you check the gpio file in debugfs to see which number
>> it got.
> 
> Okay now its numbered differently:
> 
> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
> 144
> 
> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
> 68

could you or Andrew provide content of /debug/gpio before/after?
And ls /sys/class/gpio/?
> 
> So gpio bank2 and bank1 have different gpio numbers. Is that acceptable?
> 
>>
>> This is sadly the global numberspace that we are tying to
>> get rid of (new apps/scripts should use the chardev).
>>
>> Are there applications that rely on the sysfs ABI on DaVinci?
>>
>> In that case base needs to be prerseved.

Not only base, but label also - /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/label, as this is
the way to find proper GPIO chip in sysfs using legacy GPIO ABI.

Linus, this platform is old and most of the users do not use new ABI (chardev),
so we could try change this, but need to be prepared for regressions reports.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Keerthy]

On Sunday 09 September 2018 01:11 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/06/2018 09:16 AM, Keerthy wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 05 September 2018 04:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 AM Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>>>> Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
>>>>> selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
>>>>> does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.
>>>>>
>>>>> We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
>>>>> patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
>>>>> any cleanup after this change.
>>>>
>>>> echo 28 > /sys/class/gpio/export
>>>> / # echo 28 > /sys/class/gpi[   12.839205] export_store: invalid GPIO 28
>>>> o/export
>>>> echo 2 > /sys/class/gp[   22.165728] export_store: invalid GPIO 2
>>>> io/export
>>>> / # echo 1 > /sys/class/gp[   25.961392] export_store: invalid GPIO 1
>>>> io/export
>>>> / # echo 3 > /sys/class/gp[   29.981918] export_store: invalid GPIO 3
>>>> io/export
>>>>
>>>> Export fails with this patch. I am testing this on keystone-k2g-evm.
>>>
>>> I think the GPIO got a new number didn't it?
>>>
>>> Did you check the gpio file in debugfs to see which number
>>> it got.
>>
>> Okay now its numbered differently:
>>
>> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
>> 144
>>
>> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
>> 68
> 
> could you or Andrew provide content of /debug/gpio before/after?
> And ls /sys/class/gpio/?

Output on K2G:

Before
======

cat /debug/gpio
gpiochip1: GPIOs 0-143, parent: platform/2603000.gpio, davinci_gpio.0:

gpiochip2: GPIOs 144-211, parent: platform/260a000.gpio, davinci_gpio.1:
 gpio-156 (                    |cd                  ) in  lo

gpiochip0: GPIOs 484-511, parent: platform/2620240.keystone_dsp_gpio,
2620240.keystone_dsp_gpio:

 ls /sys/class/gpio/
export       gpiochip0    gpiochip144  gpiochip484  unexport

cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/label
davinci_gpio.0

cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip144/label
davinci_gpio.1

cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip144/ngpio
68
/ # cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/ngpio
144


After
=====

 cat /debug/gpio
gpiochip2: GPIOs 272-339, parent: platform/260a000.gpio, 260a000.gpio:
 gpio-284 (                    |cd                  ) in  lo

gpiochip1: GPIOs 340-483, parent: platform/2603000.gpio, 2603000.gpio:

gpiochip0: GPIOs 484-511, parent: platform/2620240.keystone_dsp_gpio,
2620240.keystone_dsp_gpio:

ls /sys/class/gpio/
export       gpiochip272  gpiochip340  gpiochip484  unexport


cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/label
2603000.gpio
/ # cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/label
260a000.gpio
/ # cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/label

cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
68
/ # cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
144

In the case of SoCs that support multiple instances of Davinci GPIO IPs
it is harder to figure out the right gpio number to export.

>>
>> So gpio bank2 and bank1 have different gpio numbers. Is that acceptable?
>>
>>>
>>> This is sadly the global numberspace that we are tying to
>>> get rid of (new apps/scripts should use the chardev).
>>>
>>> Are there applications that rely on the sysfs ABI on DaVinci?
>>>
>>> In that case base needs to be prerseved.
> 
> Not only base, but label also - /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/label, as this is
> the way to find proper GPIO chip in sysfs using legacy GPIO ABI.
> 
> Linus, this platform is old and most of the users do not use new ABI (chardev),
> so we could try change this, but need to be prepared for regressions reports.
> 

Totally agree with this.

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Grygorii Strashko]

On 09/09/2018 09:47 PM, Keerthy wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday 09 September 2018 01:11 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/06/2018 09:16 AM, Keerthy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 05 September 2018 04:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:40 AM Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>>>>> Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
>>>>>> selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
>>>>>> does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
>>>>>> patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
>>>>>> any cleanup after this change.
>>>>>
>>>>> echo 28 > /sys/class/gpio/export
>>>>> / # echo 28 > /sys/class/gpi[   12.839205] export_store: invalid GPIO 28
>>>>> o/export
>>>>> echo 2 > /sys/class/gp[   22.165728] export_store: invalid GPIO 2
>>>>> io/export
>>>>> / # echo 1 > /sys/class/gp[   25.961392] export_store: invalid GPIO 1
>>>>> io/export
>>>>> / # echo 3 > /sys/class/gp[   29.981918] export_store: invalid GPIO 3
>>>>> io/export
>>>>>
>>>>> Export fails with this patch. I am testing this on keystone-k2g-evm.
>>>>
>>>> I think the GPIO got a new number didn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Did you check the gpio file in debugfs to see which number
>>>> it got.
>>>
>>> Okay now its numbered differently:
>>>
>>> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
>>> 144
>>>
>>> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
>>> 68
>>
>> could you or Andrew provide content of /debug/gpio before/after?
>> And ls /sys/class/gpio/?
> 
> Output on K2G:
> 
> Before
> ======
> 
> cat /debug/gpio
> gpiochip1: GPIOs 0-143, parent: platform/2603000.gpio, davinci_gpio.0:
> 
> gpiochip2: GPIOs 144-211, parent: platform/260a000.gpio, davinci_gpio.1:
>   gpio-156 (                    |cd                  ) in  lo
> 
> gpiochip0: GPIOs 484-511, parent: platform/2620240.keystone_dsp_gpio,
> 2620240.keystone_dsp_gpio:
> 
>   ls /sys/class/gpio/
> export       gpiochip0    gpiochip144  gpiochip484  unexport
> 
> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/label
> davinci_gpio.0
> 
> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip144/label
> davinci_gpio.1
> 
> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip144/ngpio
> 68
> / # cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/ngpio
> 144
> 
> 
> After
> =====
> 
>   cat /debug/gpio
> gpiochip2: GPIOs 272-339, parent: platform/260a000.gpio, 260a000.gpio:
>   gpio-284 (                    |cd                  ) in  lo
> 
> gpiochip1: GPIOs 340-483, parent: platform/2603000.gpio, 2603000.gpio:
> 
> gpiochip0: GPIOs 484-511, parent: platform/2620240.keystone_dsp_gpio,
> 2620240.keystone_dsp_gpio:
> 
> ls /sys/class/gpio/
> export       gpiochip272  gpiochip340  gpiochip484  unexport
> 
> 
> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/label
> 2603000.gpio
> / # cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/label
> 260a000.gpio
> / # cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/label
> 
> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
> 68
> / # cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
> 144
> 
> In the case of SoCs that support multiple instances of Davinci GPIO IPs
> it is harder to figure out the right gpio number to export.
> 

Just to clarify above for all:
- for the first registered gpio chip
- if base >= 0 then gpiolib: try allocate gpios [base, base + ngpio]
  else gpiolib: try allocate gpios [ARCH_NR_GPIOS - ngpio, ARCH_NR_GPIOS]

so for the "after" case we can see gpio chip base allocation in hi to low order


-- 
regards,
-grygorii

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Linus Walleij]

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 9:41 PM Grygorii Strashko
<grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2018 09:16 AM, Keerthy wrote:

> > Okay now its numbered differently:
> >
> > cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
> > 144
> >
> > cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
> > 68
(...)

So:

> >> Are there applications that rely on the sysfs ABI on DaVinci?
> >>
> >> In that case base needs to be prerseved.
>
> Not only base, but label also - /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/label, as this is
> the way to find proper GPIO chip in sysfs using legacy GPIO ABI.
>
> Linus, this platform is old and most of the users do not use new ABI (chardev),
> so we could try change this, but need to be prepared for regressions reports.

So what I'm trying to ask you guys is if there are applications that you
are aware of that use the old ABI, and who will upgrade their
kernels and be upset.

We must not break userspace, but as you know if a tree falls in the
forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.

If you're not aware of any such applications I guess we should try
changing this.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Sekhar Nori]

On Monday 10 September 2018 12:55 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 9:41 PM Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2018 09:16 AM, Keerthy wrote:
> 
>>> Okay now its numbered differently:
>>>
>>> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
>>> 144
>>>
>>> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
>>> 68
> (...)
> 
> So:
> 
>>>> Are there applications that rely on the sysfs ABI on DaVinci?
>>>>
>>>> In that case base needs to be prerseved.
>>
>> Not only base, but label also - /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/label, as this is
>> the way to find proper GPIO chip in sysfs using legacy GPIO ABI.
>>
>> Linus, this platform is old and most of the users do not use new ABI (chardev),
>> so we could try change this, but need to be prepared for regressions reports.
> 
> So what I'm trying to ask you guys is if there are applications that you
> are aware of that use the old ABI, and who will upgrade their
> kernels and be upset.
> 
> We must not break userspace, but as you know if a tree falls in the
> forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.
> 
> If you're not aware of any such applications I guess we should try
> changing this.

Personally I am not really aware of any application which relies on the
ABI. I may have some scripts, but I can adjust them. I am also copying
some frequent users of DaVinci in mainline for any comments from them.

Thanks,
Sekhar

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[David Lechner]

On 09/10/2018 02:37 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Monday 10 September 2018 12:55 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 9:41 PM Grygorii Strashko
>> <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/06/2018 09:16 AM, Keerthy wrote:
>>
>>>> Okay now its numbered differently:
>>>>
>>>> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip340/ngpio
>>>> 144
>>>>
>>>> cat /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip272/ngpio
>>>> 68
>> (...)
>>
>> So:
>>
>>>>> Are there applications that rely on the sysfs ABI on DaVinci?
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case base needs to be prerseved.
>>>
>>> Not only base, but label also - /sys/class/gpio/gpiochip0/label, as this is
>>> the way to find proper GPIO chip in sysfs using legacy GPIO ABI.
>>>
>>> Linus, this platform is old and most of the users do not use new ABI (chardev),
>>> so we could try change this, but need to be prepared for regressions reports.
>>
>> So what I'm trying to ask you guys is if there are applications that you
>> are aware of that use the old ABI, and who will upgrade their
>> kernels and be upset.
>>
>> We must not break userspace, but as you know if a tree falls in the
>> forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.
>>
>> If you're not aware of any such applications I guess we should try
>> changing this.
> 
> Personally I am not really aware of any application which relies on the
> ABI. I may have some scripts, but I can adjust them. I am also copying
> some frequent users of DaVinci in mainline for any comments from them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sekhar
> 

It won't break anything that I am aware of.

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:13 PM Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> wrote:

> Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
> selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
> does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.
>
> We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
> patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
> any cleanup after this change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>

I have tentatively applied this patch set as we seem to have rough
consensus that it will be OK.

We can always pull it out or revert it if things break.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 2/5] gpio: davinci: Use dev name for label and automatic base selection

[Keerthy]

On Wednesday 19 September 2018 12:56 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:13 PM Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> wrote:
> 
>> Use dev_name to get a unique label and use -1 for a base to get our
>> selection automatically. We pull in all GPIOs per chip now so this
>> does not have the effect of out of order labels like before.
>>
>> We do these both together so we can drop all the static data in one
>> patch. This also lets us normalize the return paths as we don't need
>> any cleanup after this change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
> 
> I have tentatively applied this patch set as we seem to have rough
> consensus that it will be OK.
> 
> We can always pull it out or revert it if things break.

Okay. If that is the case then i have already tested the entire series.

Apart from gpio numbering different, i have tested toggling and
interrupts with k2g-evm and omapl138.

> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
> 

[PATCH 3/5] gpio: davinci: Allocate the correct amount of memory for controller

[Andrew F. Davis]

Previously we created a controller structure per bank of GPIO pins. This
has since been changed to one per controller, but the allocation size
was not changed. Fix this here.

This also leaves the variable 'nbank' unused, instead of removing it,
move it down and use it to clean up a loop. For loops with multiple
initializers and/or iteration expressions, especially ones that don't
use those loop counters are quite hard to follow, fix this.

Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
index 14d1729927d3..121a7948f785 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ davinci_gpio_get_pdata(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
-	int gpio, bank, i, ret = 0;
+	int bank, i, ret = 0;
 	unsigned int ngpio, nbank, nirq;
 	struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips;
 	struct davinci_gpio_platform_data *pdata;
@@ -204,10 +204,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	else
 		nirq = DIV_ROUND_UP(ngpio, 16);
 
-	nbank = DIV_ROUND_UP(ngpio, 32);
-	chips = devm_kcalloc(dev,
-			     nbank, sizeof(struct davinci_gpio_controller),
-			     GFP_KERNEL);
+	chips = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chips), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!chips)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -247,7 +244,8 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 #endif
 	spin_lock_init(&chips->lock);
 
-	for (gpio = 0, bank = 0; gpio < ngpio; gpio += 32, bank++)
+	nbank = DIV_ROUND_UP(ngpio, 32);
+	for (bank = 0; bank < nbank; bank++)
 		chips->regs[bank] = gpio_base + offset_array[bank];
 
 	ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(dev, &chips->chip, chips);
-- 
2.18.0

Re: [PATCH 3/5] gpio: davinci: Allocate the correct amount of memory for controller

[Keerthy]

On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> Previously we created a controller structure per bank of GPIO pins. This
> has since been changed to one per controller, but the allocation size
> was not changed. Fix this here.
> 
> This also leaves the variable 'nbank' unused, instead of removing it,
> move it down and use it to clean up a loop. For loops with multiple
> initializers and/or iteration expressions, especially ones that don't
> use those loop counters are quite hard to follow, fix this.
> 

Tested for gpio interrupts on k2g and da850-lcdk

Tested-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Acked-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>

> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c | 10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> index 14d1729927d3..121a7948f785 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ davinci_gpio_get_pdata(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> -	int gpio, bank, i, ret = 0;
> +	int bank, i, ret = 0;
>  	unsigned int ngpio, nbank, nirq;
>  	struct davinci_gpio_controller *chips;
>  	struct davinci_gpio_platform_data *pdata;
> @@ -204,10 +204,7 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	else
>  		nirq = DIV_ROUND_UP(ngpio, 16);
>  
> -	nbank = DIV_ROUND_UP(ngpio, 32);
> -	chips = devm_kcalloc(dev,
> -			     nbank, sizeof(struct davinci_gpio_controller),
> -			     GFP_KERNEL);
> +	chips = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chips), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!chips)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -247,7 +244,8 @@ static int davinci_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  #endif
>  	spin_lock_init(&chips->lock);
>  
> -	for (gpio = 0, bank = 0; gpio < ngpio; gpio += 32, bank++)
> +	nbank = DIV_ROUND_UP(ngpio, 32);
> +	for (bank = 0; bank < nbank; bank++)
>  		chips->regs[bank] = gpio_base + offset_array[bank];
>  
>  	ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(dev, &chips->chip, chips);
> 

[PATCH 4/5] gpio: davinci: Remove unneeded GPIO macro

[Andrew F. Davis]

This macro does nothing and has only one user, remove it.

Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c  | 8 ++++----
 include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h | 5 -----
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c
index 353f9e5a1454..efdaa27241c5 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c
@@ -130,10 +130,10 @@ static struct platform_device davinci_fb_device = {
 };
 
 static const struct gpio_led ntosd2_leds[] = {
-	{ .name = "led1_green", .gpio = GPIO(10), },
-	{ .name = "led1_red",   .gpio = GPIO(11), },
-	{ .name = "led2_green", .gpio = GPIO(12), },
-	{ .name = "led2_red",   .gpio = GPIO(13), },
+	{ .name = "led1_green", .gpio = 10, },
+	{ .name = "led1_red",   .gpio = 11, },
+	{ .name = "led2_green", .gpio = 12, },
+	{ .name = "led2_red",   .gpio = 13, },
 };
 
 static struct gpio_led_platform_data ntosd2_leds_data = {
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
index b8e4957e7568..47695b342883 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
@@ -45,11 +45,6 @@ struct davinci_gpio_controller {
 	int			irqs[MAX_INT_PER_BANK];
 };
 
-/*
- * basic gpio routines
- */
-#define	GPIO(X)		(X)	/* 0 <= X <= (DAVINCI_N_GPIO - 1) */
-
 /* Convert GPIO signal to GPIO pin number */
 #define GPIO_TO_PIN(bank, gpio)	(16 * (bank) + (gpio))
 
-- 
2.18.0

Re: [PATCH 4/5] gpio: davinci: Remove unneeded GPIO macro

[Keerthy]

On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> This macro does nothing and has only one user, remove it.

Tested for gpio interrupts on k2g and da850-lcdk

Tested-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Acked-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c  | 8 ++++----
>  include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h | 5 -----
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c
> index 353f9e5a1454..efdaa27241c5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-neuros-osd2.c
> @@ -130,10 +130,10 @@ static struct platform_device davinci_fb_device = {
>  };
>  
>  static const struct gpio_led ntosd2_leds[] = {
> -	{ .name = "led1_green", .gpio = GPIO(10), },
> -	{ .name = "led1_red",   .gpio = GPIO(11), },
> -	{ .name = "led2_green", .gpio = GPIO(12), },
> -	{ .name = "led2_red",   .gpio = GPIO(13), },
> +	{ .name = "led1_green", .gpio = 10, },
> +	{ .name = "led1_red",   .gpio = 11, },
> +	{ .name = "led2_green", .gpio = 12, },
> +	{ .name = "led2_red",   .gpio = 13, },
>  };
>  
>  static struct gpio_led_platform_data ntosd2_leds_data = {
> diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
> index b8e4957e7568..47695b342883 100644
> --- a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
> +++ b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
> @@ -45,11 +45,6 @@ struct davinci_gpio_controller {
>  	int			irqs[MAX_INT_PER_BANK];
>  };
>  
> -/*
> - * basic gpio routines
> - */
> -#define	GPIO(X)		(X)	/* 0 <= X <= (DAVINCI_N_GPIO - 1) */
> -
>  /* Convert GPIO signal to GPIO pin number */
>  #define GPIO_TO_PIN(bank, gpio)	(16 * (bank) + (gpio))
>  
> 

[PATCH 5/5] gpio: davinci: Move driver local definitions to driver

[Andrew F. Davis]

These defines, structs and inline functions are used only internally by
the driver, they do not belong in platform_data. Move them.

Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c                | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h | 28 ----------------------
 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
index 121a7948f785..5c1564fcc24e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
  * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
  * (at your option) any later version.
  */
+
 #include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
 #include <linux/errno.h>
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
@@ -24,6 +25,12 @@
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 #include <linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h>
 #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
+
+#include <asm-generic/gpio.h>
+
+#define MAX_REGS_BANKS 5
+#define MAX_INT_PER_BANK 32
 
 struct davinci_gpio_regs {
 	u32	dir;
@@ -45,6 +52,27 @@ typedef struct irq_chip *(*gpio_get_irq_chip_cb_t)(unsigned int irq);
 static void __iomem *gpio_base;
 static unsigned int offset_array[5] = {0x10, 0x38, 0x60, 0x88, 0xb0};
 
+struct davinci_gpio_irq_data {
+	void __iomem			*regs;
+	struct davinci_gpio_controller	*chip;
+	int				bank_num;
+};
+
+struct davinci_gpio_controller {
+	struct gpio_chip	chip;
+	struct irq_domain	*irq_domain;
+	/* Serialize access to GPIO registers */
+	spinlock_t		lock;
+	void __iomem		*regs[MAX_REGS_BANKS];
+	int			gpio_unbanked;
+	int			irqs[MAX_INT_PER_BANK];
+};
+
+static inline u32 __gpio_mask(unsigned gpio)
+{
+	return 1 << (gpio % 32);
+}
+
 static inline struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *irq2regs(struct irq_data *d)
 {
 	struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g;
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
index 47695b342883..f92a47e18034 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
@@ -16,40 +16,12 @@
 #ifndef __DAVINCI_GPIO_PLATFORM_H
 #define __DAVINCI_GPIO_PLATFORM_H
 
-#include <linux/io.h>
-#include <linux/spinlock.h>
-
-#include <asm-generic/gpio.h>
-
-#define MAX_REGS_BANKS		5
-#define MAX_INT_PER_BANK 32
-
 struct davinci_gpio_platform_data {
 	u32	ngpio;
 	u32	gpio_unbanked;
 };
 
-struct davinci_gpio_irq_data {
-	void __iomem			*regs;
-	struct davinci_gpio_controller	*chip;
-	int				bank_num;
-};
-
-struct davinci_gpio_controller {
-	struct gpio_chip	chip;
-	struct irq_domain	*irq_domain;
-	/* Serialize access to GPIO registers */
-	spinlock_t		lock;
-	void __iomem		*regs[MAX_REGS_BANKS];
-	int			gpio_unbanked;
-	int			irqs[MAX_INT_PER_BANK];
-};
-
 /* Convert GPIO signal to GPIO pin number */
 #define GPIO_TO_PIN(bank, gpio)	(16 * (bank) + (gpio))
 
-static inline u32 __gpio_mask(unsigned gpio)
-{
-	return 1 << (gpio % 32);
-}
 #endif
-- 
2.18.0

Re: [PATCH 5/5] gpio: davinci: Move driver local definitions to driver

[Keerthy]

On Saturday 01 September 2018 12:43 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> These defines, structs and inline functions are used only internally by
> the driver, they do not belong in platform_data. Move them.

Tested for gpio interrupts on k2g and da850-lcdk

Tested-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Acked-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c                | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h | 28 ----------------------
>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> index 121a7948f785..5c1564fcc24e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-davinci.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>   * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>   * (at your option) any later version.
>   */
> +
>  #include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
>  #include <linux/errno.h>
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> @@ -24,6 +25,12 @@
>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>  #include <linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h>
>  #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +
> +#include <asm-generic/gpio.h>
> +
> +#define MAX_REGS_BANKS 5
> +#define MAX_INT_PER_BANK 32
>  
>  struct davinci_gpio_regs {
>  	u32	dir;
> @@ -45,6 +52,27 @@ typedef struct irq_chip *(*gpio_get_irq_chip_cb_t)(unsigned int irq);
>  static void __iomem *gpio_base;
>  static unsigned int offset_array[5] = {0x10, 0x38, 0x60, 0x88, 0xb0};
>  
> +struct davinci_gpio_irq_data {
> +	void __iomem			*regs;
> +	struct davinci_gpio_controller	*chip;
> +	int				bank_num;
> +};
> +
> +struct davinci_gpio_controller {
> +	struct gpio_chip	chip;
> +	struct irq_domain	*irq_domain;
> +	/* Serialize access to GPIO registers */
> +	spinlock_t		lock;
> +	void __iomem		*regs[MAX_REGS_BANKS];
> +	int			gpio_unbanked;
> +	int			irqs[MAX_INT_PER_BANK];
> +};
> +
> +static inline u32 __gpio_mask(unsigned gpio)
> +{
> +	return 1 << (gpio % 32);
> +}
> +
>  static inline struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *irq2regs(struct irq_data *d)
>  {
>  	struct davinci_gpio_regs __iomem *g;
> diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
> index 47695b342883..f92a47e18034 100644
> --- a/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
> +++ b/include/linux/platform_data/gpio-davinci.h
> @@ -16,40 +16,12 @@
>  #ifndef __DAVINCI_GPIO_PLATFORM_H
>  #define __DAVINCI_GPIO_PLATFORM_H
>  
> -#include <linux/io.h>
> -#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> -
> -#include <asm-generic/gpio.h>
> -
> -#define MAX_REGS_BANKS		5
> -#define MAX_INT_PER_BANK 32
> -
>  struct davinci_gpio_platform_data {
>  	u32	ngpio;
>  	u32	gpio_unbanked;
>  };
>  
> -struct davinci_gpio_irq_data {
> -	void __iomem			*regs;
> -	struct davinci_gpio_controller	*chip;
> -	int				bank_num;
> -};
> -
> -struct davinci_gpio_controller {
> -	struct gpio_chip	chip;
> -	struct irq_domain	*irq_domain;
> -	/* Serialize access to GPIO registers */
> -	spinlock_t		lock;
> -	void __iomem		*regs[MAX_REGS_BANKS];
> -	int			gpio_unbanked;
> -	int			irqs[MAX_INT_PER_BANK];
> -};
> -
>  /* Convert GPIO signal to GPIO pin number */
>  #define GPIO_TO_PIN(bank, gpio)	(16 * (bank) + (gpio))
>  
> -static inline u32 __gpio_mask(unsigned gpio)
> -{
> -	return 1 << (gpio % 32);
> -}
>  #endif
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/5] gpio: davinci: Remove unused member of davinci_gpio_controller

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:13 PM Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> wrote:

> This was added as part of the patch in the fixes below, but was
> not needed or used, remove this here.
>
> Fixes: 8e11047b8f3c ("gpio: davinci: Add support for multiple GPIO controllers")
> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com>

Patch applied.

Yours,
Linus Walleij