[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vep8VSirY7mvGGCubNi-O4jS_inTALS3Ei9mQu98RV+7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 09:00:47 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"brgl@...ev.pl" <brgl@...ev.pl>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
": Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>,
Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: fix allocation of mixed dynamic/static GPIOs
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:40 AM Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 27/04/2023 à 00:03, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
> > [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de andreas@...nade.info. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present,
> > dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation,
> > causing static allocation to fail.
> > Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE.
>
> Hum ....
>
> Commit 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") was supposed
> to enforce dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE already.
>
> Can you describe what is going wrong exactly with the above commit ?
Above commit only works to the first dynamic allocation, if you need
more than one with static ones present it mistakenly will give you a
base _below_ DYNAMIC_BASE.
However, this change is just PoC I proposed, the conditional and
action should be slightly different to cover a corner case, when
statically allocated chip overlaps the DYNAMIC_BASE, i.e. gdev->base <
DYNAMIC_BASE, while gdev->base + gdev->ngpio >= DYNAMIC_BASE.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists