On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 03:38:17PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 18-08-19 15:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:18:22AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > On 12-08-19 15:53, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > > Anyways, this will need to be fixed before we can merge this. > > > > It might affect the behaviour of pinctrl-baytrail as well. > > > > Hans, do you have any Baytrail at hand to test latest linux-next, or take my > > for-next branch from > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pinctrl/intel.git? > > Given all the hw-enablement work I've done for BYT/CHT I have a whole > stack of Bay Trail devices. Is there anything specific you want me to > test? Or should I just take the first one of the stack which uses a > GPIO from the SoC as IRQ for something and then test that something? >From the thread I got that it should be one which uses GPIO for GPE. Given that we have a fix there against misconfigured pins by firmware [1, 2], which utilizes need_valid_mask, probably ASUS T100TA is a good candidate. [1]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-gpio/msg18842.html [2]: commit 49c03096263871a68c9dea3e86b7d1e163d2fba8 > > > Linus, shall I postpone Baytrail patch as well? > > Unlike the INT0002 virtual GPIO driver changes this one does not seem > to move anything to a later point in time... -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
