On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:52:51 +0300 andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 09:39:20AM +0200, Andreas Kemnade kirjoitti: > > On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:19:10 +0300 > > Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [230425 19:58]: > > > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 22:36:37 +0300 > > > > Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:20:40PM +0200, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > > > > > Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > > ... [...] > > I think the reason for the patch (besides of cleaning up warnings) is that > > dynamic allocation seems to start at 512, static at zero. > > If both are there, like registering twl_gpio between omap gpiochip 4 and 5, > > dynamic allocation seems just to start after the last static number, > > calling for trouble. > > > > If dynamic alloc would just start at 512 in that case too, no problem would appear. > > As said I have not bisected it to an exact commit yet. > > So if we need to move backward, we should IMHO first fix that allocation thing. > > I agree. > > As PoC can the reported add the following lines > > if (gdev->base < GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE) > continue; > > after https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c#L190 > and test your idea? > > yes, looking at git blame 7b61212f2a07a ("gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS") would probably have been the correct Fixes-tag for for that patch (and will be for the new approach to fix it) and its intention was exactly what we are talking about. I will test. Regards, Andreas
