Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gpio-f7188x: fix base values conflicts with other gpio pins

[simon.guinot@sequanux.org]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1480 bytes --]

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 12:57:27PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:
> Am Mon, 29 May 2023 15:54:36 +0200
> schrieb simon.guinot@sequanux.org:
> 
> > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 2:27 PM <simon.guinot@sequanux.org> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > It would be nice if a pin number found in the device datasheet
> > > > could still be converted into a Linux GPIO number by adding the
> > > > base of the first bank.  
> > > 
> > > We actively discourage this kind of mapping because of reasons
> > > stated in drivers/gpio/TODO: we want dynamic number allocation to
> > > be the norm.  
> > 
> > Hi Linus,
> > 
> > Sure but it would be nice to have a dynamic base applied to a
> > controller (and not to each chip of this controller), and to respect
> > the interval between the chips (as stated in the controllers
> > datasheets).
> 
> You mentioned yourself that there are the holes to take care of. And
> the symbols/names from the SPECs seem to be octal numbers to me. While
> humans might prefer decimal and the code seems to be hexadecimal.
> 
> Not sure the numbers have ever been too useful for humans. And once we
> change one base (bank0) we actually already break user-land that so far
> failed to discover the base from sysfs (bug in that user-land code, not
> our problem).
> 
> I am with Linus on that one, we should try.

I am also in the Linus and "everybody but me" team too :)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]