On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 06:20:34 +0000 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > and that not with simple continue or base might simply stay at DYNAMIC_BASE. I will send a v2 of this patch with refined logic. Regards, Andreas
