From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene@kernel.org (Kukjin Kim) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:37:52 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: EXYNOS: Update CONFIG_ARCH_NR_GPIO for Exynos In-Reply-To: References: <1372054438-15693-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> <0ab301ce867d$9078c170$b16a4450$%kim@samsung.com> Message-ID: <0ad601ce868c$d88bff40$89a3fdc0$@org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Sachin Kamat wrote: > > On 22 July 2013 07:18, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Sachin Kamat wrote: > >> > >> With the recent cleanup in Exynos platform code notably commits > >> 17859bec ("ARM: EXYNOS: Do not select legacy Kconfig symbols any > >> more") and b9222210 ("ARM: EXYNOS: Remove mach/gpio.h"), the definition > >> of ARCH_NR_GPIOS got removed. This started causing problems on SoCs > like > >> Exynos4412 which have more (285) than the default number of GPIOs (255). > >> Thus define this number in Kconfig file. Without this patch we get the > >> following errors during boot: > >> > >> gpiochip_add: gpios 251..258 (gpv0) failed to register > >> samsung-pinctrl 106e0000.pinctrl: failed to register gpio_chip gpv0, > >> error code: -22 > >> samsung-pinctrl: probe of 106e0000.pinctrl failed with error -22 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat > >> Cc: Tomasz Figa > >> --- > >> Based on Kukjin's for-next tree. > >> --- > >> arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig > >> index ddf2667..380a53b 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig > >> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig > >> @@ -1578,6 +1578,7 @@ config ARCH_NR_GPIO > >> default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 > >> default 392 if ARCH_U8500 > >> default 352 if ARCH_VT8500 > >> + default 288 if ARCH_EXYNOS > >> default 288 if ARCH_SUNXI > >> default 264 if MACH_H4700 > >> default 0 > >> -- > >> 1.7.9.5 > > > > Hmm, BTW, I'm wondering why it is 288 not 285 or other specific number... > > I wasn't really sure if we can have any number there. I chose the > closest one (288) which was already used by other platform. > If there is no problem to use 285 itself then I can resend with that > number. Please let me know. > If there is no reason, please don't use bigger value than necessary one. Thanks, Kukjin