Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: tighten up ACPI legacy gpio lookups

From: Linus Walleij
Date: Wed Dec 09 2015 - 10:11:37 EST

Hi Dmitry,

Sorry for me being so damned slow.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
>> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > We should not fall back to the legacy unnamed gpio lookup style if the
>> > driver requests gpios with different names, because we'll give out the same
>> > gpio twice. Let's keep track of the names that were used for the device and
>> > only do the fallback for the first name used.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > v1: incorporated changes suggested by Mika Westerberg in response to the
>> > draft patch I posted in Goodix thread.
>> >
>> > v2: moved acpi_can_fallback_to_crs body to drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
>> > and provided stub for !CONFIG_ACPI case to fix build error if ACPI is
>> > disabled.
>> Patch applied with Mika's ACK.
>> Had to fuzz a bit to make it apply, hope nothing breaks.
> Hmm, I'd like to get this patch into my tree as well to apply Irina's
> goodix pieces on top to make sure they do not break. Would it be OK for
> me to just apply the patch and hope git will sort it out when we merge
> into next/mainline, you maybe you could prepare a 4.3-based branch with
> the patch for me to pull?

I had to fuzz the patch so then you need to get the version I applied out
of my tree.

But I'm not going to rebase the tree so you can pull commit
from the GPIO tree if you like. Or I can make a tag there if
you prefer, just tell me.

I'm stacking a loooot of GPIO patches on top, so I prefer not to have
any conflicts.

Linus Walleij
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at