On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > I got this same patch 3 times in a row in one day, not sure why. :-) Good to hear from you Gregory. :) Sorry mail server issue hehe > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:12 PM, <justinpopo6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> On some chips we have empty banks or a hole in the register space. >> The driver assumes all banks are consecutive and the same size. > > It does assume both of these, but if this workaround works, then only > the former is a problem, right? Consider omitting the mention of it > being the same size if it's not relevant for the change. Oh ok, I see what you are getting at here. I think I might just rephrase the commit message as a whole. Now that I am reading it again, it is a bit confusing. > >> To work around this, we create a fake bank where there is a hole >> and keep it out of the linked list so it won't be called or initialized > > The idea seems OK, and it looks like this should already even be > handled properly by brcmstb_gpio_irq_map(). I think the main issue is > informational; the info line printed at the end of probe would give > the appearance of the driver registering more GPIOs than it actually > does. Please update that to be clearer about what is actually > registered. Without the patch we actually fail at brcmstb_gpio_sanity_check_banks because of if (res_num_banks != num_banks) { dev_err(dev, "Mismatch in banks: res had %d, bank-widths had %d\n", res_num_banks, num_banks); return -EINVAL; } ... Ok I'll see what I can do. The information is already misleading because not all banks use all 32 gpios. Thanks, Justin > > Best regards, > Gregory -- 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