On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:56:22PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Ludovic Desroches > <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This patch allows to have gpio controller with status set to disabled. > > > > gpio_banks represents all the gpio banks available on the device whereas > > nbanks represents the gpio banks used. Having a disabled gpio controller > > involves that nbanks value is lower than gpio_banks and that some > > pointers in the gpio_chips array are NULL. This patch deals with these > > specific cases. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx> > > (...) > > /* We will handle a range of GPIO pins */ > > - for (i = 0; i < info->nbanks; i++) > > - pinctrl_add_gpio_range(info->pctl, &gpio_chips[i]->range); > > + for (i = 0; i < gpio_banks; i++) > > + if (gpio_chips[i]) > > + pinctrl_add_gpio_range(info->pctl, &gpio_chips[i]->range); > > I highly suspect the real solution to this problem is to get rid > of the pinctrl_add_gpio_range() call from the driver. > > Remobe these calls, and instead in at91_gpio_probe() in the same > file, call gpiochip_add_pingroup_range() for each GPIO chip. > > That way the GPIO ranges are inserted from the GPIO side instead > of the pinctrl side, which is way better, since it is more relative, > and make you only add ranges for the gpio chips actually there. I had a quick look to Documentation about that stuff, I totally agree that it is a better approach. Before going further I was wondering if it would not cause backward compatibility issue with old dtb (it seems I'll have to add some properties to gpio controllers). Regards Ludovic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
