Re: [PATCH v2] x86/platform/geode: reference the real node of the cs5535 GPIO controller

From: Borislav Petkov

Date: Mon Jun 08 2026 - 13:31:57 EST


On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 11:04:43AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> We now can access the address of the software node associated with the
> GPIO controller cell of the cs5535 MFD device. Make it the target of the
> GPIO software node references in geode-common.c. Make sure the cs5535
> driver is built-in for all boards selecting GEODE_COMMON. Note that the
> software node in question is exported in the "CS5535" namespace so we
> must import it in this module.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> GPIO software node lookup should rely exclusively on matching the
> addresses of the referenced firmware nodes. I tried to enforce it with
> commit e5d527be7e69 ("gpio: swnode: don't use the swnode's name as the
> key for GPIO lookup") but it broke existing users who abuse the software
> node mechanism by creating "dummy" software nodes named after the device
> they want to get GPIOs from but never attaching them to the actual GPIO
> devices. They rely on the current behavior of GPIOLIB where it will match
> the label of the GPIO controller against the name of the software node
> and does not require a true link.

I think this should be the first paragraph of your commit message.

> In order to un-revert e5d527be7e69, we need to convert all existing
> users to real firmware node lookup for software nodes.

Who's "we"?

> This series exposes the software node associated with the GPIO
> controller cell of the cs5535 MFD device and uses it in the geode board
> setup for LEDs.
>
> Merging strategy: there's not much development going on for the geode
> board file so this could go through the MFD tree with an ack from the
> x86 maintainers.

Can you please explain this better? Something like this:

1. Prepare the context for the explanation briefly.

2. Explain the problem at hand.

3. "It happens because of <...>"

4. "Fix it by doing X"

5. "(Potentially do Y)."

And some of those above are optional depending on the issue being
explained.

Thx.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette