Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220711173418.91709-1-brgl@bgdev.pl>
In-Reply-To: <20220711173418.91709-1-brgl@bgdev.pl>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 20:49:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcHVJu2bX_qWKf84e2t=FrNRvsRLnEXirRKVPh=kZz=hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: sim: fix the chip_name configfs item
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 7:35 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
>
> The chip_name configs attribute always displays the device name of the
> first GPIO bank because the logic of the relevant function is simply
> wrong.
>
> Fix it by correctly comparing the bank's swnode against the GPIO
> device's children.
>
> Fixes: cb8c474e79be ("gpio: sim: new testing module")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>

...

>  struct gpio_sim_chip_name_ctx {
> -       struct gpio_sim_device *dev;
> +       struct fwnode_handle *swnode;

I would call it fwnode even if we know the backend provider.

>         char *page;
>  };

...

>         struct fwnode_handle *swnode;

Do you still need this? See below.

...

>         swnode = dev_fwnode(dev);
>
> +       if (swnode == ctx->swnode)
> +               return sprintf(ctx->page, "%s\n", dev_name(dev));

So, now it can be

if (device_match_fwnode(dev, ctx->fwnode))
  return sprintf(...);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko