[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221116160654.3dofnzvouwfzt3sw@SoMainline.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 17:06:54 +0100
From: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: of: Use correct fwnode for DT-probed chips
On 2022-11-16 11:26:34, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:18:00PM +0100, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2022-11-14 16:15:25, Brian Masney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:37:32PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 8afe82550240 ("gpiolib: of: Prepare of_gpiochip_add() / of_gpiochip_remove() for fwnode")
> > > > Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
> > > Tested-by: Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>
> > >
> > > I separately sent a similar type of patch to fix the same issue today:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221114202943.2389489-1-bmasney@redhat.com/T/#u
> >
> > For completeness, your linked patch fixes a synchronous external abort
> > on multiple Qualcomm platforms pointed out in [1]. This patch however
> > does not, are you sure they fix the exact same issue?
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221115110800.35gl3j43lmbxm3jb@SoMainline.org/
>
> Can you check if the below fixes the MSM issue that you're seeing
> (applied on top of my earlier patch, though with Brian's reverted
> temporarily)?
Yes that solves it too, thanks!
- Marijn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists