Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: correct parent irqspec translation

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Satya/David,

nice work on identifying this bug!

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 6:56 AM satya priya <skakit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: David Collins <collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> pmic_gpio_child_to_parent_hwirq() and
> gpiochip_populate_parent_fwspec_fourcell() translate a pinctrl-
> spmi-gpio irqspec to an SPMI controller irqspec.  When they do
> this, they use a fixed SPMI slave ID of 0 and a fixed GPIO
> peripheral offset of 0xC0 (corresponding to SPMI address 0xC000).
> This translation results in an incorrect irqspec for secondary
> PMICs that don't have a slave ID of 0 as well as for PMIC chips
> which have GPIO peripherals located at a base address other than
> 0xC000.
>
> Correct this issue by passing the slave ID of the pinctrl-spmi-
> gpio device's parent in the SPMI controller irqspec and by
> calculating the peripheral ID base from the device tree 'reg'
> property of the pinctrl-spmi-gpio device.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: satya priya <skakit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Is this a regression or is it fine if I just apply it for v5.15?
I was thinking v5.15 since it isn't yet used in device trees.

Yours,
Linus Walleij