On Fri, 2020-02-14 at 13:14 +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > Hi-deeee-Ho Peeps! > > > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 10:40 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 7:52 AM Vaittinen, Matti > > <Matti.Vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 14:30 +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > > > > Hi Matti, > > > > > > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: > > > > > > > > [auto build test WARNING on > > > > 70d97e099bb426ecb3ad4bf31e88dbf2ef4b2e4c] > > > > > > > > 480 static int wmt_gpio_get_direction(struct > > > > gpio_chip > > > > *chip, unsigned offset) > > > > 481 { > > > > 482 struct wmt_pinctrl_data *data = > > > > gpiochip_get_data(chip); > > > > 483 u32 bank = WMT_BANK_FROM_PIN(offset); > > > > 484 u32 bit = WMT_BIT_FROM_PIN(offset); > > > > 485 u32 reg_dir = data->banks[bank].reg_dir; > > > > 486 u32 val; > > > > 487 > > > > 488 val = readl_relaxed(data->base + > > > > reg_dir); > > > > 489 if (val & BIT(bit)) > > > > > 490 GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_OUT; > > > > > > Right. Return is missing. I think I already fixed this - I guess > > > I > > > sent > > > wrong version... Sorry guys. I'll do v3 with only this return > > > added > > > - > > > and I'll send it to limited amount of recipients as I think most > > > of > > > you > > > guys may not be interested. Probably to Linus W, Geert and GPIO > > > list > > > only. Let me know if you want to see the v3 (or other subsequent > > > patches) > > I just noticed this was never merged even though I was sure I sent a > fixed version. It took me a while but I guess I managed to dig out > the > reason... > > First I sent v2 with the return missing: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20191112141819.GA22076@localhost.localdomain/ > > And then I did indeed send a fixed version: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20191113071501.GA22158@localhost.localdomain/#Z30drivers:pinctrl:vt8500:pinctrl-wmt.c > > ...but titled this as v2 too. I guess that's why it never caught > correct attention. > > I tried rebasing this to current gpio/devel. The pinctrl-ingenic.c > had > gained trivial conflict - do you want me to get the pinctrl tree and > do > merging on top of it && resending this or do you want to try applying > it? I decided to do resend as I had the commit sitting there rebased. Sorry for messing this up. v3 is now finally on its way. Best Regards, Matti Vaittinen