From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] pinctrl: qcom: Don't allow protected pins to be requested Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:34:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1521804875.23017.95.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20180321165848.89751-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <20180321165848.89751-4-swboyd@chromium.org> <97380342-c3aa-5d34-7b22-f6ebbab4bafe@codeaurora.org> <59df3700-c0bd-6ee8-eeab-6a49cb92d1db@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <59df3700-c0bd-6ee8-eeab-6a49cb92d1db@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Timur Tabi , Stephen Boyd , Linus Walleij Cc: Stephen Boyd , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson , Grant Likely , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 19:59 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 03/22/2018 07:23 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > > > > Also, you don't allocate chip->valid_mask anywhere. > > So I see now where it's allocated, but something is fishy. No, it seems you missed %p vs. %px discussion. The pointers printed by %p nowadays are hashed values, not the original ones. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy