From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD4A6E573 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2026 05:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784439261; cv=none; b=osTUormDC33sYUcODawr8n3bWS1av7AxhwyS3iLTwGDAqBr3n5SBFDXzGvRIfXgFJQpfqCLddCalmwn/1ghEPKaRKCaTwkK7DP07QnxBYa/6dPyT6KXTKej9D+Kg82tSRVelvMRORYtS/E/Xhbqz5Qt724ZlF4SbxItWi/KkLeU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784439261; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C6kHWkhZCuRERuqVHFQkKmJUxXj9UN8T958zur83IBk=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=pHhcaxBrcvGkkkfCGKGuSlts9t0jTUWmPGYviKrCJSsy1K04EZSoMPFybBgESxUP9eGGhKW/VOFrZ95H0Logct1jsrlPuRiH4i9byZOdc8/xdO5zsujAXzp7cYQC6ZjQ5jTHSh6KEmBC4rqoOQT+HxeFHjQQMVmx2rXQqtTfOzg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=jJhfH2/j; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="jJhfH2/j" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59D041F000E9; Sun, 19 Jul 2026 05:34:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784439260; bh=DoApnejNm7bpyQmqPi0euRCqtmz7fjUrUUHNqh2OFcE=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=jJhfH2/jy2dQmakavTOzQDFpJBgONVBOiiQCWuqduea9kT4Ytls+swmFaDlq0FNKG 48KNiDPqiJRHt8irHNyB2foVp5JlLFKxlNQUl4e1F+CTZcLDbK3BhdsmjJio9IXV8W tBtC3YOj9xS+2a3O6z1mDbpmfBy0wRNrhIq9TQuHsQ5NbEy0NYQfXqz+F6IkHjbnTV O9HcD6KOVDOjB5P4W6Bw4SBJZ9Wkrr2WB1y0ADoDMiczgqGIlL8p5vkQWLxKLuxKEk 8yq7IHfkQ3KjsL5q80TOVSQ64njjx7sLmdAdZ4TcIJcWLsYiMDD64fVu1zUXaKd6ay t7gpvkeTYfhtQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/dts: mpc5121: Move GPIO controller properties to SoC dtsi Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Dmitry Torokhov" Cc: robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260718-ads7846-pdm360ng-v1-1-f318f85cda57@gmail.com> References: <20260718-ads7846-pdm360ng-v1-0-f318f85cda57@gmail.com> <20260718-ads7846-pdm360ng-v1-1-f318f85cda57@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 05:34:20 +0000 Message-Id: <20260719053420.59D041F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: Pre-existing issues: - [High] The ads7846 touchscreen driver and gpio-mpc8xxx driver both claim = IPIC IRQ 78, leading to an IRQ request conflict and masked interrupts. -- --- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/dts: mpc5121: Move GPIO controller prope= rties to SoC dtsi --- commit 9f0c3f1fd5a726a9eddf4e07512d2ccf88203d01 Author: Dmitry Torokhov powerpc/dts: mpc5121: Move GPIO controller properties to SoC dtsi Define gpio@1100 with label gpio_pic as a GPIO controller and interrupt controller directly in mpc5121.dtsi so all MPC5121 boards inherit the correct controller capabilities. > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc5121.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/m= pc5121.dtsi > index a278fb7b9e711..9c5dacb94b924 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc5121.dtsi > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc5121.dtsi [ ... ] > @@ -146,10 +146,14 @@ pmc@1000 { > interrupts =3D <83 0x8>; > }; > =20 > - gpio@1100 { > + gpio_pic: gpio@1100 { > compatible =3D "fsl,mpc5121-gpio"; > reg =3D <0x1100 0x100>; > interrupts =3D <78 0x8>; > + gpio-controller; > + #gpio-cells =3D <2>; > + interrupt-controller; > + #interrupt-cells =3D <2>; [Severity: High] This is a pre-existing issue, but does centralizing this interrupt controll= er declaration leave an unresolved IRQ request conflict on the pdm360ng board? In arch/powerpc/boot/dts/pdm360ng.dts, the touchscreen node directly claims IPIC IRQ 78 instead of routing through the GPIO controller: ts@0 { ... interrupts =3D <78 0x8>; }; Additionally, in arch/powerpc/platforms/512x/pdm360ng.c, pdm360ng_penirq_init() directly manipulates the GPIO controller's IMR register: setbits32(pdm360ng_gpio_base + 0x10, 0x40); When both the ads7846 touchscreen driver and gpio-mpc8xxx driver try to claim IRQ 78, could the request fail with -EBUSY?=20 Even if they could share the IRQ, the gpio-mpc8xxx driver clears the GPIO IMR register on probe, which would silently overwrite the earlier setup done by pdm360ng_penirq_init() and mask the touchscreen's interrupt. Could this cause a permanent loss of touch input on boot for the pdm360ng when both drivers are enabled? > }; > =20 > can@1300 { --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260718-ads7846-pd= m360ng-v1-0-f318f85cda57@gmail.com?part=3D1