[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y20CZtHkaLmQj+IP@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 15:53:42 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] gpiolib: of: Prepare of_gpiochip_add() /
of_gpiochip_remove() for fwnode
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 02:22:40PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 03:38:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> > + np = to_of_node(chip->fwnode);
>
> This breaks a number of GPIO controllers on Tegra where chip->fwnode
> ends up never getting set. I also see this break drivers like the MFD-
> based gpio-max77620, so I don't think this is anything specific to the
> Tegra drivers.
>
> Looking at how fwnode handling works, it seems like we're checking the
> wrong value here, since chip->fwnode is only for explicit overrides of
> the fwnode value.
>
> The below patch fixes the regression for me:
Thank you! Can you submit it as a formal fix? (Also see below)
Of if Bart prefers I can respin fixed verison. Bart?
...
> - np = to_of_node(chip->fwnode);
> + np = to_of_node(chip->gpiodev->dev.fwnode);
dev_fwnode(&chip->gpiodev->dev)
...
Your report makes me wonder if I can Cc you the patch that changes that logic,
so you can help with a testing on OF platforms.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists