Hi Richard, On mar., mai 30 2017, Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If more than one gpio bank has the "pwm" property, only one will be > registered successfully, all the others will fail with: > mvebu-gpio: probe of f1018140.gpio failed with error -17 > > That's because in alloc_pwms(), the chip->base (aka "int pwm"), was not > set (thus, ==0) ; and 0 is a meaningful start value in alloc_pwm(). > What was intended is chip->base = -1. > Like that, the numbering will be done auto-magically > > Tested on clearfog-pro (Marvell 88F6828) > > Signed-off-by: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c > index cdef2c78cb3b..4734923e11fd 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mvebu.c > @@ -768,6 +768,7 @@ static int mvebu_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, > mvpwm->chip.dev = dev; > mvpwm->chip.ops = &mvebu_pwm_ops; > mvpwm->chip.npwm = mvchip->chip.ngpio; > + mvpwm->chip.base = -1; Why not using mvpwm->chip.base = id * MVEBU_MAX_GPIO_PER_BANK; as it is done in the mvebu_gpio_probe() function? I think that if you use base = -1, then the number start from (512 - number of pin already use). So starting from a low number for one compatible and a high number for an other compatible could be confusing. Besides that I agree that mvpwm->chip.base must be initialized and here again for adding mor context to this patch, we could add: Fixes: 757642f9a584 ("gpio: mvebu: Add limited PWM support") Gregory > > spin_lock_init(&mvpwm->lock); > -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- 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