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. 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. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
