> /* BlueField-2 GPIO driver initialization routine. */ static int
> mlxbf2_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> struct mlxbf2_gpio_context *gs;
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct gpio_irq_chip *girq;
> struct gpio_chip *gc;
> unsigned int npins;
> - int ret;
> + const char *name;
> + int ret, irq;
> +
> + name = dev_name(dev);
>
> gs = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*gs), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!gs)
> @@ -256,11 +366,44 @@ mlxbf2_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> NULL,
> 0);
>
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "bgpio_init failed\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> This is a correct fix but it should be sent as a fix aimed for stable in a separate branch, as we want that to be backported.
Ok! So I will send v5 patch, leaving these 4 lines out, then will add this small fix to a separate patch aimed to the stable branch.
> Other than that it looks good to me, which tree do you want it to go through?
Since the mlxbf-gige driver is dependent on this commit, I would like to push both this gpio
commit and
"[PATCH v4 2/2] net: mellanox: mlxbf_gige: Replace non-standard interrupt handling"
to the same tree/branch.
I apologize I am not very familiar with the push process when 2 dependent commits
target different drivers. So any input is greatly appreciated!
Since the mlxbf_gige driver is targeting the net master branch, would it be possible to push
The Gpio change as well to net?
If this is not possible, maybe we can push the commit to linux-gpio master and
The mlxbf_gige to the net branch. But we will need to sync the timing for when both
requests go to the mainline.
David Miller, Andrew Lunn, I know you have acked/reviewed v1 and v2 patches for
the mlxbf_gige driver. I just want to make sure you are still ok with this implementation.
I mentioned in a previous email that our management/product manager approved using
PHY interrupt instead of polling.
Thank you.
Asmaa
