On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:37:32PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <[email protected]>
>
> The OF node store in chip->fwnode is used to explicitly override the FW
> node for a GPIO chip. For chips that use the default FW node (i.e. that
> of their parent device), this will be NULL and cause the chip not to be
> fully registered.
>
> Instead, use the GPIO device's FW node, which is set to either the node
> of the parent device or the explicit override in chip->fwnode.
Thank you!
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
P.S.
It's good we have this report, which means I have to reconsider the
followup I'm cooking. In any case I will send it after v6.2-rc1 for
broader testing.
> Fixes: 8afe82550240 ("gpiolib: of: Prepare of_gpiochip_add() / of_gpiochip_remove() for fwnode")
> Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> index 4be3c21aa718..55c3712592db 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c
> @@ -1067,7 +1067,7 @@ int of_gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> struct device_node *np;
> int ret;
>
> - np = to_of_node(chip->fwnode);
> + np = to_of_node(dev_fwnode(&chip->gpiodev->dev));
> if (!np)
> return 0;
>
> --
> 2.38.1
>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 01:45:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:37:32PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <[email protected]>
> >
> > The OF node store in chip->fwnode is used to explicitly override the FW
> > node for a GPIO chip. For chips that use the default FW node (i.e. that
> > of their parent device), this will be NULL and cause the chip not to be
> > fully registered.
> >
> > Instead, use the GPIO device's FW node, which is set to either the node
> > of the parent device or the explicit override in chip->fwnode.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>
> P.S.
> It's good we have this report, which means I have to reconsider the
> followup I'm cooking. In any case I will send it after v6.2-rc1 for
> broader testing.
Feel free to add me on Cc if you need the patches tested on OF systems.
Thierry