On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:48 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 30-10-2019 15:49, Linus Walleij wrote: > This does not seem to work I've tested in both a Bay Trail and > a Cherry Trail device and neither will boot the kernel after > these changes I'm afraid. > > I think it might be best to pass in an array of ranges (*) to > gpiochip_add_data and have it register the ranges before > doing the irq-chip setup. Yeah this new way of populating GPIO irqchips seems to be pretty imperialistic and pull the whole world into the gpiolib. I don't mind, once we have the semantic in one place we can get it right. (As with the previous ordering issues.) Hopefully it saves us from other problems. Thierry: is this approach for pin control ranges in line with your initial design of the new way of registering gpio irqchips? I guess I can draft something to test. Yours, Linus Walleij