From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: samsung: Calculate GPIO base for pinctrl_add_gpio_range Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:39:15 +0200 Message-ID: <20170320183915.r4bfl466yyph74i4@kozik-lap> References: <20170228090143.GG2742@localhost.localdomain> <1488301475-10804-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20170306164909.GA6986@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170306164909.GA6986@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Charles Keepax Cc: Tomasz Figa , "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , Sylwester Nawrocki , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel , patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:49:09PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:20:11PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > > > 2017-03-01 2:04 GMT+09:00 Charles Keepax : > > > As the pinctrl is now added before the GPIOs are registered we need to > > > manually calculate what the GPIO base will be, otherwise the base for > > > each gpio_range will be set to zero. Fortunately the driver > > > already assigns a GPIO base, in samsung_gpiolib_register, and uses the > > > same calculation it does for the pin_base. Meaning the two will always > > > be the same and allowing us to reuse the pinbase and avoid the issue. > > > > Sorry, I didn't notice before and I don't see the offending patch in , > > but you should add > > > > Fixes: XXXXXXXXXXXX ("pinctrl: Patch subject") > > > > if you intend to submit this patch separately. Otherwise, maybe this > > can be just squashed? > > > > Yeah apologies for that as the original patch hasn't showed up in > the tree yet I couldn't pull a commit ID to add the fixes tag. > Squashing it in is probably the best way to go. Hi Charles, Thanks for the work. This is a follow up of: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9577147/ Right? None of these two were applied so can you squash them, rebase, retest and send again? Best regards, Krzysztof