From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFEBC433EF for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:25:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239467AbhLFR2b (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:28:31 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32792 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234199AbhLFR2b (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:28:31 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D707C061746; Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:25:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id 137so11161614pgg.3; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:25:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wGI0LCAPIz5KvwQ+2lj86H/d+Nna109rkn2gLihP96U=; b=l4kwufD61aG+RlFU1MapBNvhESj/nDyKEMOQZWmxE7EdpPeHCyqXfDnN/Xb0thwyTd kmL/hfzcSKaQ4qI8+KgSZZHX2tVLlvOmXOqsvJeSd+4haW10Upb6dSixslnxHKj209LL Soh4i3UMoVFfG8TGxMR2lnyGgJmxwxn3xf4MywMvFib/DqD4lbfjLN7y6MQTC09qoHZl lSb3nzI0Q9jt/+gJyDQzvv+0oK5Llhc8jltU0DoRsQSdz4w9WK7WJw+lNX0EKcVtFb2O 3FtVLbSwihT0Fh4oiznlarR0hjNXzl+fE05HTeUIoPhr62FkxL1PXvGtzUhrXsfxZy7N aB3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wGI0LCAPIz5KvwQ+2lj86H/d+Nna109rkn2gLihP96U=; b=lJQZ/S9eg144y59UdoF5LjMHdQ1yULUZaQR9bxQj+G4EAtPOnq502vw12h3GVYOfsH YryzMnKllFjBe919hlUBUTfStS99VvE3rNwuxJlrLnnfJH720xKGiHFuJPEOUhFmiXsj ev5Fn5GT+MrJCbmy7OOpdH6dxofbdM1tfVP8hXTfOCN9LSW4yxFSEo7o8kwuSkFI7dUm iqiTegNHRnDRrdgMfaI5WYRJjYjF0WopUqT+cGHIkLzizDOYA6OGnMslyOI3Ew48FoVz YerPyGVIrkFTwNrAbAH5eJe09MvO5FsuiGppmpRIxiK0Woh7MOm1GiSwvoa4NvVD4YfR n8KQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fA8IZQpY5EJWmFGx7lPt8TYFF3q51t05+ywoTATDymoTC+KTU yGzW5BfFXsyNbRvxsOazWyw4ODAvw1U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzyaRX/JKtzcPrFdJuWbLVhqC7eLihaPTEv9nqQiYflZsBLBcwSjvc62O57fjcIJonuCrVAsw== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:93c4:0:b0:49f:a7f5:7f5a with SMTP id y4-20020aa793c4000000b0049fa7f57f5amr38082976pff.8.1638811501406; Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:25:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.67.48.245] ([192.19.223.252]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 12sm485pjn.16.2021.12.06.09.24.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:25:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: dts: gpio-ranges property is now required To: Linus Walleij , Phil Elwell Cc: Rob Herring , Nicolas Saenz Julienne , bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, Thierry Reding , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org References: <20211206092237.4105895-1-phil@raspberrypi.com> <20211206092237.4105895-3-phil@raspberrypi.com> From: Florian Fainelli Message-ID: <04acf5f1-7d82-b12b-f70f-1712a4a2610c@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:24:59 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On 12/6/21 2:33 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:22 AM Phil Elwell wrote: > >> Since [1], added in 5.7, the absence of a gpio-ranges property has >> prevented GPIOs from being restored to inputs when released. >> Add those properties for BCM283x and BCM2711 devices. >> >> [1] commit 2ab73c6d8323 ("gpio: Support GPIO controllers without >> pin-ranges") >> >> Fixes: 2ab73c6d8323 ("gpio: Support GPIO controllers without pin-ranges") >> Signed-off-by: Phil Elwell > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij > > Please funnel this patch through the SoC tree. This one was definitively going to go via ARM SoC in the absence of any explicit routing, did you mean that patch #1 should also be routed via ARM SoC? -- Florian