On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 04:52:25PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 4:00 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 03:13:53PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 3:00 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:41:53PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: ... > > > > how do you avoid overflow? > > > > > > I renamed the property, the previous "chip-name" is no longer used. In > > > fact it was never used but was accounted for in GPIO_MOCKUP_MAX_PROP. > > > > Either I'm missing something or... > > > > Current code in linux-next has 3 properties to be possible > > > > PROPERTY_ENTRY_U32("gpio-base", base); > > PROPERTY_ENTRY_U16("nr-gpios", ngpio); > > PROPERTY_ENTRY_BOOL("named-gpio-lines"); > > > > You adding here > > PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING("chip-label", chip_label); > > > > Altogether after this patch is 4 which is maximum, but since array is passed by > > a solely pointer, the terminator is a must. > > > > Thanks for explaining my code to me. Yes you're right and I'm not sure > why I missed this. :) > > I'll fix this in v3. > > Actually this means the code is wrong even before this series - it's > just that we don't use the "chip-name" property. Right, you patch just exposed it. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko