On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Tyler Hall <tylerwhall@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> The issue with multiple gpiochips per of-node could be worked around as followed I believe, comments? >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c >>> index 08261f2..43984ab 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-of.c >>> @@ -47,11 +47,12 @@ static int of_gpiochip_find_and_xlate(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data) >>> ret = gc->of_xlate(gc, &gg_data->gpiospec, gg_data->flags); >>> if (ret < 0) { >>> /* We've found the gpio chip, but the translation failed. >>> - * Return true to stop looking and return the translation >>> - * error via out_gpio >>> + * Store translation error in out_gpio. >>> + * Return false to keep looking, as more than one GPIO chip >>> + * could be registered per of-node. >>> */ >>> gg_data->out_gpio = ERR_PTR(ret); >>> - return true; >>> + return false; >>> } >>> >>> gg_data->out_gpio = gpiochip_get_desc(gc, ret); >> >> As long as we're ok with multiple gpiochips per of-node, this would >> work for me. It'll change the preference of which chip returns the >> error in the case of multiple chips, but that's already undefined >> behavior. > > Looks good to me too, this will solve my issue, and the global behavior would be > consistent with the former one. > > Would you care submitting a proper patch so that we can apply our Reviewed-by, > Tested-by etc ... ? Looks ok to me too, if only a little bit hackish. A patch would be appreciated so we can send it for -fixes as well. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html