Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932185AbdCFQsS (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:48:18 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001ae601.pphosted.com ([67.231.149.25]:53216 "EHLO mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932067AbdCFQsL (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:48:11 -0500 Authentication-Results: ppops.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 16:49:09 +0000 From: Charles Keepax To: Tomasz Figa CC: "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sylwester Nawrocki , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: samsung: Calculate GPIO base for pinctrl_add_gpio_range Message-ID: <20170306164909.GA6986@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170228090143.GG2742@localhost.localdomain> <1488301475-10804-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1702020001 definitions=main-1703060139 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1042 Lines: 26 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 : > > 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