On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 9:45 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:26 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:57 PM Geert Uytterhoeven > > <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The GPIO Aggregator will need a method to forward a .set_config() call > > > to its parent gpiochip. This requires obtaining the gpio_chip and > > > offset for a given gpio_desc. While gpiod_to_chip() is public, > > > gpio_chip_hwgpio() is not, so there is currently no method to obtain the > > > needed GPIO offset parameter. > > > > > > Hence introduce a public gpiod_set_config() helper, which invokes the > > > .set_config() callback through a gpio_desc pointer, like is done for > > > most other gpio_chip callbacks. > > > > > > Rewrite the existing gpiod_set_debounce() helper as a wrapper around > > > gpiod_set_config(), to avoid duplication. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > v6: > > > - New. > > > > This is nice, I tried to actually just apply this (you also sent some > > two cleanups that I tried to apply) byt Yue's cleanup patch > > commit d18fddff061d2796525e6d4a958cb3d30aed8efd > > "gpiolib: Remove duplicated function gpio_do_set_config()" > > makes none of them apply :/ > > /me confused. > > That commit was reverted later, so it shouldn't matter. > > I have just verified, and both my full series and just this single > patch, do apply fine to all of current gpio/for-next, linus/master, and > next-20200327. They even apply fine to gpio/for-next before or after > the two cleanups I sent, too. > > What am I missing? Ah I see, it is because my development branch is based on v5.6-rc1. So I have to merge in a later -rc where this revert is applied so that this applies. Yours, Linus Walleij
