6.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Léo DUBOIN <lduboin@xxxxxxxxxx> [ Upstream commit 9dfbcf2fc566c0be2de1c7685f29effd25696b75 ] We were not resetting the pointer to the associated gpio_device once we are done displaying a pin's information. This meant that once we reached the end of a gpio-range, if there were pins right after it that did not belong to any known range, they would be associated with the previous range's gpio device. This resulted in those pins appearing as <4294966783:old_gdev> instead of the expected <0:?> (due to gpio_num being -1). Signed-off-by: Léo DUBOIN <lduboin@xxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/c40d0634abefa19e689ffd450e0f48a8d63c4fc4.1714049455.git.lduboin@xxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/pinctrl/core.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c index 4438f3b4b5ef..60f866f1e6d7 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c @@ -1670,6 +1670,7 @@ static int pinctrl_pins_show(struct seq_file *s, void *what) seq_printf(s, "pin %d (%s) ", pin, desc->name); #ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB + gdev = NULL; gpio_num = -1; list_for_each_entry(range, &pctldev->gpio_ranges, node) { if ((pin >= range->pin_base) && -- 2.43.0
