On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:56:22PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> 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). The gpiolib core code parses and add ranges when using device tree, and that is part of the core gpio bindings. I think you should just try to add in the ranges in the dts nodes for the gpiochips, remove the pinctrl_add_gpio_range() calls and see what happens. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
