On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 08:39:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:49:09PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 08:20:11PM +0900, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > Hi Charles, > > > > > > 2017-03-01 2:04 GMT+09:00 Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > As the pinctrl is now added before the GPIOs are registered we need to > > > > manually calculate what the GPIO base will be, otherwise the base for > > > > each gpio_range will be set to zero. Fortunately the driver > > > > already assigns a GPIO base, in samsung_gpiolib_register, and uses the > > > > same calculation it does for the pin_base. Meaning the two will always > > > > be the same and allowing us to reuse the pinbase and avoid the issue. > > > > > > Sorry, I didn't notice before and I don't see the offending patch in , > > > but you should add > > > > > > Fixes: XXXXXXXXXXXX ("pinctrl: Patch subject") > > > > > > if you intend to submit this patch separately. Otherwise, maybe this > > > can be just squashed? > > > > > > > Yeah apologies for that as the original patch hasn't showed up in > > the tree yet I couldn't pull a commit ID to add the fixes tag. > > Squashing it in is probably the best way to go. > > Hi Charles, > > Thanks for the work. > > This is a follow up of: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9577147/ > Right? > > None of these two were applied so can you squash them, rebase, retest > and send again? > Yeah no problem should be able to resend later today hopefully. Thanks, Charles -- 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