On 07/10/2023 04:14, Sam Protsenko wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 8:01 AM Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The object of this work is fixing the following warning, which appears >> on all targets using that driver: >> >> gpio gpiochip0: Static allocation of GPIO base is deprecated, use dynamic allocation. >> >> This needs a small refactor to how we interact with the pinctrl >> subsystem. Finally, we remove some bookkeeping that has only been >> necessary to allocate GPIO bases correctly. >> >> Mateusz Majewski (4): >> pinctrl: samsung: defer pinctrl_enable >> pinctrl: samsung: use add_pin_ranges method to add pinctrl ranges >> pinctrl: samsung: choose GPIO numberspace base dynamically >> pinctrl: samsung: do not offset pinctrl numberspaces >> >> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.c | 56 ++++++++++++----------- >> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-samsung.h | 4 +- >> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >> >> -- > > Hi Mateusz, > > Thank you for handling this! Those deprecation warnings have been > bugging me for some time :) While testing this series on my E850-96 > board (Exynos850 based), I noticed some changes in > /sys/kernel/debug/gpio file, like these: > > 8<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>8 > -gpiochip0: GPIOs 0-7, parent: platform/11850000.pinctrl, gpa0: > - gpio-7 ( |Volume Up ) in hi IRQ ACTIVE LOW > +gpiochip0: GPIOs 512-519, parent: platform/11850000.pinctrl, gpa0: > + gpio-519 ( |Volume Up ) in hi IRQ ACTIVE LOW > > -gpiochip1: GPIOs 8-15, parent: platform/11850000.pinctrl, gpa1: > - gpio-8 ( |Volume Down ) in hi IRQ ACTIVE LOW > +gpiochip1: GPIOs 520-527, parent: platform/11850000.pinctrl, gpa1: > + gpio-520 ( |Volume Down ) in hi IRQ ACTIVE LOW > > -gpiochip2: GPIOs 16-23, parent: platform/11850000.pinctrl, gpa2: > +gpiochip2: GPIOs 528-535, parent: platform/11850000.pinctrl, gpa2: > > ... > 8<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>8 > > So basically it looks like all line numbers were offset by 512. Can > you please comment on this? Is it an intentional change, and why it's > happening? > > Despite of that change, everything seems to be working fine. But I > kinda liked the numeration starting from 0 better :) Could it be the reason of dynamic allocation? Best regards, Krzysztof