On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Linus Walleij > <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven >> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> + gpio_chip->request = rz_gpio_request; >>>>> + gpio_chip->free = rz_gpio_free; >>>>> + gpio_chip->label = dev_name(&pdev->dev); >>>>> + gpio_chip->parent = &pdev->dev; >>>>> + gpio_chip->owner = THIS_MODULE; >>>>> + gpio_chip->base = -1; >>>>> + gpio_chip->ngpio = ret == 0 ? args.args[2] : RZ_GPIOS_PER_PORT; >>>> >>>> bgpio_init() will have already set this up to 16 (RZ_GPIOS_PER_PORT) >>>> as we pass width 2 bytes. >>> >>> Note that some banks have less than 16 GPIOs, cfr. the last value of the >>> gpio-ranges tuple being less than 16. >> >> Aha OK then it is fine to override this default value calculate from >> the register size. >> >> But for that case we should use the standard DT property >> ngpios described in >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt >> It is for exactly this purpose. > > IC. > > Note that gpio-rcar uses the same method, switching to "ngpios" would > break backwards compatibility. Can we support both? Yours, Linus Walleij
