[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve8d96Uw1obJVwRPyRE5E0eC8qU7uXe-UKuZeB-3XLPcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 11:46:21 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>, Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@...rulasolutions.com>, Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
Catalin Popescu <catalin.popescu@...ca-geosystems.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] gpio: mxc: silence warning about GPIO base being
statically allocated
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:19 AM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
> The i.MX GPIO driver has had deterministic numbering for the GPIOs
> for more than 12 years.
>
> Reverting this to dynamically numbered will break existing setups in the
> worst manner possible: The build will succeed, the kernel will not print
> warnings, but users will find their devices essentially toggling GPIOs
> at random with the potential of permanent damage. We thus want to keep
> the numbering as-is until the SysFS API is removed and script fail
> instead of toggling GPIOs dependent on probe order.
While I understand the issue this tends to get never fixed until the
entire support of iMX boards will be dropped. Personally I do not like
this series at all. Rather let's try to go the hard way and understand
what's going on to fix the current issues.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists