Hi Charles,
2017-03-01 2:04 GMT+09:00 Charles Keepax <[email protected]>:
> 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 <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Tomasz
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 <[email protected]>:
> > 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
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 <[email protected]>:
> > > 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
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 <[email protected]>:
> > > > 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