On 2018-10-10 12:40, Sodagudi Prasad wrote:
On 2018-10-07 23:04, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Sodagudi Prasad (2018-10-03 05:38:24)
for (i = 0; i < chip->ngpio; i++, gpio++) {
+ label = gpiochip_is_requested(chip, i);
+ if (!label)
+ continue;
msm_gpio_dbg_show_one(s, NULL, chip, i, gpio);
- seq_puts(s, "\n");
}
}
Does something not work with the following code in
msm_gpio_dbg_show_one()?
if (!gpiochip_line_is_valid(chip, offset))
return;
Hi Stephen,
I didnt realize that these changes are merged on tip. I was testing on
4.14 kernel.
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/878107/
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/878106/
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/878109/
Hi Stephen,
After checking this further, adding "gpio-reserved-ranges" in not good
option. Because of the following reasons.
1) These gpio information changes from platform to platform. So need to
maintain reserved-range properly for each platform.
2) Also some of the gpio can be changed to secure/protected gpio
dynamically based on the use case.
It looks adding the "gpio-reserved-ranges" ranges is not good option for
most of the platforms.
Can you please check the initial patch suggested in this thread? Please
let me know if you have any other options for the above points.
-Thanks, Prasad
I will add "gpio-reserved-ranges" to internal platforms and this issue
should not be observed.
-thanks, Prasad
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
