Hi Satya/David, nice work on identifying this bug! On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 6:56 AM satya priya <skakit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: David Collins <collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > pmic_gpio_child_to_parent_hwirq() and > gpiochip_populate_parent_fwspec_fourcell() translate a pinctrl- > spmi-gpio irqspec to an SPMI controller irqspec. When they do > this, they use a fixed SPMI slave ID of 0 and a fixed GPIO > peripheral offset of 0xC0 (corresponding to SPMI address 0xC000). > This translation results in an incorrect irqspec for secondary > PMICs that don't have a slave ID of 0 as well as for PMIC chips > which have GPIO peripherals located at a base address other than > 0xC000. > > Correct this issue by passing the slave ID of the pinctrl-spmi- > gpio device's parent in the SPMI controller irqspec and by > calculating the peripheral ID base from the device tree 'reg' > property of the pinctrl-spmi-gpio device. > > Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: satya priya <skakit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Is this a regression or is it fine if I just apply it for v5.15? I was thinking v5.15 since it isn't yet used in device trees. Yours, Linus Walleij
