From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] gpiolib: use gpio_chips list in gpiochip_find_base Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 09:47:53 +0000 Message-ID: <20130209094753.555F03E2C66@localhost> References: <1359822572-26009-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <1359822572-26009-7-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <5111E093.4060600@nvidia.com> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5111E093.4060600@nvidia.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Courbot , Linus Walleij Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "gnurou@gmail.com" , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Haojian Zhuang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:48:19 +0900, Alex Courbot wrote: > On 02/06/2013 02:21 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > This looks like it is preserving this userspace-sensitive semantic > > so that dynamically added chips will still get the same assigned > > numbers. > > It does (it should, at least), the assigned ranges should be strictly > identical to the previous version. While testing I also made sure all > chips had the same GPIO range. > > > But I want some guarantees, so state clearly in the commit > > that any dynamically assigned chip will get the same base > > address after this change as it got before it, and please take > > this opportunity to add a comment stating that this search > > method is vital for userspace ABIs, and must be preserved. > > Done. I will take the blame if something goes wrong. :) Applied, thanks g. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f170.google.com ([74.125.82.170]:46362 "EHLO mail-we0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752757Ab3BIKKK (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Feb 2013 05:10:10 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id z53so3864492wey.1 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:10:09 -0800 (PST) From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] gpiolib: use gpio_chips list in gpiochip_find_base In-Reply-To: <5111E093.4060600@nvidia.com> References: <1359822572-26009-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <1359822572-26009-7-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <5111E093.4060600@nvidia.com> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 09:47:53 +0000 Message-ID: <20130209094753.555F03E2C66@localhost> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alex Courbot , Linus Walleij Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "gnurou@gmail.com" , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Haojian Zhuang , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Message-ID: <20130209094753.qsG3FVyB0EA85H3Wi8CsObDevfy3Ac8ngjekF0kx7wQ@z> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:48:19 +0900, Alex Courbot wrote: > On 02/06/2013 02:21 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > This looks like it is preserving this userspace-sensitive semantic > > so that dynamically added chips will still get the same assigned > > numbers. > > It does (it should, at least), the assigned ranges should be strictly > identical to the previous version. While testing I also made sure all > chips had the same GPIO range. > > > But I want some guarantees, so state clearly in the commit > > that any dynamically assigned chip will get the same base > > address after this change as it got before it, and please take > > this opportunity to add a comment stating that this search > > method is vital for userspace ABIs, and must be preserved. > > Done. I will take the blame if something goes wrong. :) Applied, thanks g.