Le 27/04/2023 à 08:00, Andy Shevchenko a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:40 AM Christophe Leroy > <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> Le 27/04/2023 à 00:03, Andreas Kemnade a écrit : >>> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >>> >>> If static allocation and dynamic allocation GPIOs are present, >>> dynamic allocation pollutes the numberspace for static allocation, >>> causing static allocation to fail. >>> Enfore dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE. >> >> Hum .... >> >> Commit 7b61212f2a07 ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") was supposed >> to enforce dynamic allocation above GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE already. >> >> Can you describe what is going wrong exactly with the above commit ? > > Above commit only works to the first dynamic allocation, if you need > more than one with static ones present it mistakenly will give you a > base _below_ DYNAMIC_BASE. Ah right, that needs to be fixed. > > However, this change is just PoC I proposed, the conditional and > action should be slightly different to cover a corner case, when > statically allocated chip overlaps the DYNAMIC_BASE, i.e. gdev->base < > DYNAMIC_BASE, while gdev->base + gdev->ngpio >= DYNAMIC_BASE. > Yes you are right, that's gdev->base + gdev->ngpio that should be checked. Christophe