[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230427123733.15ad4aa3@aktux>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:37:33 +0200
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"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, 27 Apr 2023 06:20:34 +0000
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
> Le 27/04/2023 à 08:00, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
> > 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.
>
> Ah right, that needs to be fixed.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Yes you are right, that's gdev->base + gdev->ngpio that should be checked.
>
and that not with simple continue or base might simply stay at DYNAMIC_BASE.
I will send a v2 of this patch with refined logic.
Regards,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists