On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 2:06 PM Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 1:30 PM Sergio Paracuellos > <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > - ret = devprop_gpiochip_set_names(gc); > + ret = devprop_gpiochip_set_names(gc, 0); I had been expecting that this parameter would be in the field of the gpiochip. ... > The problem I see with this approach is that > 'devprop_gpiochip_set_names' already trusts in gpio_device already > created and this happens in 'gpiochip_add_data_with_key'. So doing in > this way force "broken drivers" to call this new > 'devprop_gpiochip_set_names_base' function after > 'devm_gpiochip_add_data' is called so the core code has already set up > the friendly names repeated for all gpio chip banks and the approach > would be to "overwrite" those in a second pass which sounds more like > a hack than a solution. > > But maybe I am missing something in what you were pointing out here. Would the above work? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko